or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › Volvo station wagon w/ third row seating
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Volvo station wagon w/ third row seating - Page 2

post #21 of 32

The v70 is actually a Ford, that is, it was made after Ford bought out Volvo in 1999.

 

We drive a Volvo 960 1996.  There is no way the Hatchback on our car is fiberglass, when the struts are broken, that door is super heavy.  Our kids ride in the rear facing seat when they hit the right weight, 50lbs.  They're really excited about it initially, but its actually pretty lonely.  My kids are tall & thin, so middle dd was over 8 years old by the time she could finally ride back there.  My youngest is really a skinny minny, so it'll be a while for her, she weighs just over 40lbs and rides in a Radian.

 

When ds was 8 he rode in the back across the country.  

 

I will admit, that picture was alarming, but I know the original Volvo's are far safer than Ford's version.

post #22 of 32

A 50 lb 8 year old is going to need a booster to position the belt correctly, and you cannot use a booster in a rear facing seat. 

post #23 of 32

As it was stated up thread, these are booster seats, they're built in, just like the fold down one in the middle of the back seat.  They are not regular/standard adult carseats.  

post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMum View Post

As it was stated up thread, these are booster seats, they're built in, just like the fold down one in the middle of the back seat.  They are not regular/standard adult carseats.  



Interesting, I have never had an opportunity to play with one of these before!  That's pretty cool.   Would it be too much to trouble you for a picture?  Even a stock photo if you have access to one.  I've done dozens of Volvos, (very popular out here) and I've never seen it. 

post #25 of 32

Whatever the old (pre-Ford) Volvo hatch is made of, it wasn't designed to take even a medium-sized SUV in the rear.  The main and sometimes only thing between a rear-facing child and the grille of an SUV is glass.  This is true in many cars, but might not obvious to those of us who purchase Volvos because they're "the safest car you can buy."    (Mind you, I would buy a Volvo again--even one made by Ford--I just wouldn't put my kids in the 3rd row seat of one, and I worry about all of us driving amidst these much larger cars). 

post #26 of 32
So, I hit 'quote' but I am using an I Pad, and it looks weird, so, sorry if it comes out goofy. I know this is an old thread, but thanks, kdicka for the pic. We had a 91 Volvo with the back third row for years. (It was great for hauling teenagers around in our youth ministry.). I guess I just trusted the overall safety of the Volvo, and it def. Wasn't fiberglass, the back door weighed a ton. However, I always worried about kids getting trapped if the latch malfunctioned, and I can see how a larger vehicle could go right into the back. We just gave it to a friend. I will be showing him your picture!
post #27 of 32

Was seriously considering buying a Volvo but after this pic...NO WAY. Paying more gas for an SUV is worth my childrens lives. joy.gif

post #28 of 32

A picture speaks a thousand words!

post #29 of 32

I registered just to respond to this.

 

First:

 

That is not a minor accident.

 

Second:

 

I'm pretty sure there are horrifying pictures of accidents where children were injured expressly BECAUSE they were forward facing. There are many aerospace engineers (not car buffs, car salesmen, or mechanics) who advocate aft facing airline seats because test data overwhelmingly indicate that the body can sustain MUCH greater impact forces when being pushed into the seat versus out of it. Thats why many army air transports orient the seat backwards. The ONLY reason we don't ride that way in commercial vehicles is consumer preference and convenience... NOT safety.

 

Third:

 

If the alternative is back row seating in a minivan or SUV, something nobody seems to question, I wonder how my kids would be affected by that same crash in our Honda Oddysey vs. our Volvo. True, the Volvo puts their feet closer to an oncoming vehicle, but the minivan puts their heads, necks, spines and organs considerably closer. Get a tape measure and compare the two. The rear seating in our van "feels" more normal but is 1) closer to the impact zone and 2) seems much more likely to injure the occupants in a frontal offset or nearly any other kind of accident since the kids would be projected forward (and their necks whipped forward at say 50MPH) vs. being pushed back into the seat.

 

Keep in mind that fragile babies and infants are mandated to ride rear facing for these same reasons. Just because the seat is in the "way-back" doesn't by definition make it any closer to harm than the 18" or so distance in the typical minivan or SUV.

 

Physics people. It looks scary because were not used to it but it seems to me no more dangerous than pretty much every single minivan or 3 row SUV you pass. Willing to be shown where I'm wrong, just sick of seeing the fear mongering whenever I come across these threads.

 

BTW, I am sorry to hear of that accident. Don't get me wrong, the pics are TERRIFYING!

post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelhugger View Post

I registered just to respond to this.

 

First:

 

That is not a minor accident.

 

Second:

 

I'm pretty sure there are horrifying pictures of accidents where children were injured expressly BECAUSE they were forward facing. There are many aerospace engineers (not car buffs, car salesmen, or mechanics) who advocate aft facing airline seats because test data overwhelmingly indicate that the body can sustain MUCH greater impact forces when being pushed into the seat versus out of it. Thats why many army air transports orient the seat backwards. The ONLY reason we don't ride that way in commercial vehicles is consumer preference and convenience... NOT safety.

 

Third:

 

If the alternative is back row seating in a minivan or SUV, something nobody seems to question, I wonder how my kids would be affected by that same crash in our Honda Oddysey vs. our Volvo. True, the Volvo puts their feet closer to an oncoming vehicle, but the minivan puts their heads, necks, spines and organs considerably closer. Get a tape measure and compare the two. The rear seating in our van "feels" more normal but is 1) closer to the impact zone and 2) seems much more likely to injure the occupants in a frontal offset or nearly any other kind of accident since the kids would be projected forward (and their necks whipped forward at say 50MPH) vs. being pushed back into the seat.

 

Keep in mind that fragile babies and infants are mandated to ride rear facing for these same reasons. Just because the seat is in the "way-back" doesn't by definition make it any closer to harm than the 18" or so distance in the typical minivan or SUV.

 

Physics people. It looks scary because were not used to it but it seems to me no more dangerous than pretty much every single minivan or 3 row SUV you pass. Willing to be shown where I'm wrong, just sick of seeing the fear mongering whenever I come across these threads.

 

BTW, I am sorry to hear of that accident. Don't get me wrong, the pics are TERRIFYING!

 

My concern with most rfing 3rd row seats in the trunks of wagons is the lack of head support.  Measuring the back of my van (sienna) and my in-laws volvo (no 3rd row, but it was an option on their model) the distance is fairly similar to where the head it.  The Sienna does have a decent sized trunk, however.  Also, my child's head is higher up from the road then it would be in a wagon (so a hit by an SUV would be lower than their head would be especially compared to the trunk of a wagon).  Additionally, the back of my child's head is completely "covered" by the back of the seat and headrest.  In the 3rd row of a wagon there is nothing between the rear window and the face of  a child sitting back there.

post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DahliaRW View Post

Also, my child's head is higher up from the road then it would be in a wagon (so a hit by an SUV would be lower than their head would be especially compared to the trunk of a wagon).  

That's a fair point. And would extend to side impact as well.

post #32 of 32

I also was rear-ended (Aug 29 2013) in my 2001 V70 - thankfully I was the only occupant. Kids in the third row would have been killed. I was hit by a raised up jeep with a winch on front - common in the Northwest. and a menace to passenger cars. Because of the great anti-whiplash design of the seats, I was fine - no pain or injury (surprisingly). But I want to get the word out that the third row is not safe when you live around trucks and SUVs.

 

 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Family Safety
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Family Safety › Volvo station wagon w/ third row seating