This would make me a horrible mother, correct? - Page 4

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by Adventuredad

This statement is not supported by any research, data or real life experiences. It's totally incorrect. Front seat placement is a very misunderstood subject, especially in US. Fact is that front seat is an excellent place for a child, rear facing or forward facing, as long as airbag is deactivated.. You can read more facts about front seat here.

Most airbags in US can't be deactivated but this doesn't change the fact that it's extremely safe if airbag can be deactivated. Doesn't matter if it's for an infant, toddler, or older child. We know very well that front seat is a great place for a child thanks to research, data and real life experience.

- Research show front seat is just as safe as the rear. Rf in front seat is actually safer when looking at all factors. US data show rear seat is safer which is not surprising since airbags can't be deactivated so they should not be sitting there.

- A child shorter than 140 cm (55 inches) should not sit in front seat with an active airbag. It's not safe.

- Sweden, 30 years ahead of US in car seat safety, have been keeping kids rear facing since 1965 and use the front seat extensively for small to large kids. Both RF and FF. Car seat safety record is the envy of the world

- Car seat manufacturers such as Britax, BeSafe, Graco say publicly front seat is a great place as long as airbag is deactivated. It's on their websites in Europe.

- Car brands such as Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, etc say publicly front seat is just as safe as the rear seat.

- Europe has Isofix instead of LATCH. Newer cars have Isofix in front passenger seat so kids can sit there from infant age throughout booster age.

- I have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in car seat safety. The safety of front seat placement with a deactivated airbags is never debated because everyone with in depth knowledge know it's extremely safe.

Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.

And, since you have yet to present any sources for your above statements, I'll stick with the much-supported statement that the back seat is safest for anyone, and children under the age of 13 should never ride in the front seat.

This is a great article about safety of different seating positions

The basic laws of physics mean that any vehicle occupant has the greatest risk of injury when the initial point of impact is closest to them. Since frontal collisions are the most common type of crash, representing about 50 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2007 according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), rear-seat passengers in general have less of a risk of injury during a frontal collision simply because they are more likely to be further away from the initial point of impact.

However, this does not hold true for all age groups. A 2005 NHTSA study assessed the risk of serious injury and death to occupants seated in the front seat versus the rear seat, in a frontal impact. This study showed that restrained occupants younger than age 50 had less risk when seated in the rear, while restrained occupants older than 50 were better off in the front seat because the airbag afforded them greater protection.

From NHTSA,

NHTSA also recommends that children 12 and under sit in the rear seat away from the force of a deploying air bag.
Children age 12 and under are safest when properly buckled in the back seat of a motor vehicle.

Another report from NHTSA (page 132)

The closer the occupant sits to the point of impact, the greater the
risk of fatal injury. That is because fatal crashes often result in severe damage, but rarely to the entire vehicle. They can demolish the portion of the passenger compartment closest to the impact, while the furthest portion remains nearly intact. A frontal impact is twice as dangerous for front-seat occupants as back-seat occupants, whereas a rear impact is twice as dangerous for the back-seat occupants.19 But this is not a trade-off. High-speed frontal impacts are far more common than high-speed rear impacts, resulting in greater overall fatality risk to front-seat occupants...

A second advantage for the unrestrained back-seat occupant in a frontal crash is that he or she will contact the back of the front seat, a more benign surface than the steering assembly, instrument panel, or windshield header contacted by the unrestrained front-seat occupant. This advantage may be lost if both occupants are correctly restrained. Nevertheless, a back-seat occupant, restrained or unrestrained, ought to have lower fatality risk than a front-seat occupant with the same safety equipment.

[treeoflife3]

basically, this thread just makes me nervous about airbags at all. yep.

I'd put the 10.5 year old in front. Anyone who has serious issue with that could always foot the bill of a new car if they are so concerned about you doing the best you can with what you have.

I can only assume having twins makes it hard to consider seriously messing up your current finances over a new car to please the masses claiming that a child under the age of 12.. 14... 15... is oh so unsafe. You are not a bad mother. You are a mother who clearly cares and just wants to do the best she can.

[chickabiddy]

There's a difference between acknowledging that we often need to work with what we have and there's no shame or guilt in that, and saying that a big kid is just as safe as a similarly-sized adult in the front seat. A kid is not as safe as an adult in the front. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the OP has four kids in an Outback. Of the four kids, the 10yo is safest in front. I would like to see the child in a backless booster if it doesn't make the belt fit all wonky, because one of the dangers of kids in the front is poor belt fit and immature hips. A backless booster can help mitigate that.

[WifeofAnt]

Originally Posted by RaeDyCo

Wow, you can get your drivers learner permit here at age 14... I thought the age was 12 also, never heard 15 before. Especially when my 4 brothers were all over 5'6 by the time they were 12!

I'm not sure about other states but I'm pretty sure in Michigan (where I'm from) you can get a learners permit and drive with a parent at 14 years 9 months. (Wikipedia lists 10 states where you can get it sooner with 2 states allowing teens under 15 to drive alone.)

[an_aurora]

Originally Posted by chickabiddy

There's a difference between acknowledging that we often need to work with what we have and there's no shame or guilt in that, and saying that a big kid is just as safe as a similarly-sized adult in the front seat. A kid is not as safe as an adult in the front. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the OP has four kids in an Outback. Of the four kids, the 10yo is safest in front. I would like to see the child in a backless booster if it doesn't make the belt fit all wonky, because one of the dangers of kids in the front is poor belt fit and immature hips. A backless booster can help mitigate that.

Nobody is trying to shame the OP. She asked if it's safe, and she got honest answers.

[Jessnet]

[QUOTE=an_aurora;15788537]Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.
[/B][/QUOTE=an_aurora;15788537]


YES you can do this! Mine are all deactivated and I did the deactivating myself. You just have to take initiative to figure out how to do this. Because air bags are NOT a one-size fits all solution (as much as the government would like it to be)

The OP could have the 10 year old in the front WITHOUT the airbags activated as another solution to her problem.

[Eman'smom]

What would happen if you can't get 3 carseats in the back? In an outback that is a real concern, 3 radians may fit, have you tried that out yet?



There is a difference between at 10 year old and a 12 year old. The OP said her 2 year old was small but never mentioned the size of her 10 year old.

[chickabiddy]

It is possible to get three carseats in an older Outback. The older ones are actually wider and less humpy than the newer ones.

[sapphire_chan]

I thought part of the reason for air bags was a second line of defense for people who forgot to wear a seat belt. If the seat's as far back as possible and the 10.5 year old is properly wearing a seat belt (and ime, most front seat belts fit shorter people MUCH better than most back seat belts (grrrrr, fricking HATE most rear seat belts and their stupid neck scratching slipping POS position in relation to the seat /rant)) how much does the presence of an air bag even matter?

As for side impact airbags, my car has them in back too, so they might be a moot point.

[LAWoman]

Sorry if I missed it and someone has already posted it but you can legally get an on off switch installed to turn it off when a child rides in front. I recently helped a friend get this form submitted for her husband who's necessary medical equipment would make airbag deployment dangerous.

Here is the form you need:

http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/...ch_Request.pdf

Good luck!

[greenbeanmama]

Originally Posted by Jessnet

Okay, really? I mean really?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even sit in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the driving - presumably from the front seat I might add.

Ha! In Iowa, you can get your permit at FOURTEEN! And, if you're in the country, sometimes they'll issue "school permits" where a 14 or 15-year-old can drive ALONE to and from school.

Forgot to mention that, also, we occasionally see ten-year-olds driving tractors on highways. No permit needed.

I agree that children need to ride safely in cars. But we don't need to be extreme about it. I'd let my 10-year old ride in the front seat in your situation.

[southernmommie]

Originally Posted by Jessnet

Okay, really? I mean really?

How, as parents, do we justify that one year they are not old enough to even sit in the front, but the next year they are old enough to do the driving - presumably from the front seat I might add.

If the children are relegated to the back seat for soooo long how are they even going to learn how to drive? They learn over time by watching us and being able to observe traffic patterns and how cars switch lanes and move and interact. (not to mention other important things, like directions and landmarks)

When I am in the backseat I can't see anything: directions, how the stick shift works, where the keys go, how far ahead you have to start breaking so as not to hit the car in front. These are things our future drivers should know before they start driving with drivers ed.

While I can agree children shouldn't be in the front, these are teenagers and older children we are talking about. There is NO WAY I can justify keeping my DSD, who at 14 is 8 inches taller than me and who gets her permit in 2 months, out of the front seat.

OP, I think you will be fine. Relax.

I don't post in this thread much, but i saw this post and had to comment. I completely agree with this poster!! That's how I learned. I think you will be fine.

[an_aurora]

[QUOTE=Jessnet;15789177]

Originally Posted by an_aurora

Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.
[/B][/QUOTE=an_aurora;15788537]


YES you can do this! Mine are all deactivated and I did the deactivating myself. You just have to take initiative to figure out how to do this. Because air bags are NOT a one-size fits all solution (as much as the government would like it to be)

The OP could have the 10 year old in the front WITHOUT the airbags activated as another solution to her problem.

Safely and legally, not you cannot.

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by Adventuredad

This statement is not supported by any research, data or real life experiences. It's totally incorrect. Front seat placement is a very misunderstood subject, especially in US. Fact is that front seat is an excellent place for a child, rear facing or forward facing, as long as airbag is deactivated.. You can read more facts about front seat here.

Most airbags in US can't be deactivated but this doesn't change the fact that it's extremely safe if airbag can be deactivated. Doesn't matter if it's for an infant, toddler, or older child. We know very well that front seat is a great place for a child thanks to research, data and real life experience.

- Research show front seat is just as safe as the rear. Rf in front seat is actually safer when looking at all factors. US data show rear seat is safer which is not surprising since airbags can't be deactivated so they should not be sitting there.

- A child shorter than 140 cm (55 inches) should not sit in front seat with an active airbag. It's not safe.

- Sweden, 30 years ahead of US in car seat safety, have been keeping kids rear facing since 1965 and use the front seat extensively for small to large kids. Both RF and FF. Car seat safety record is the envy of the world

- Car seat manufacturers such as Britax, BeSafe, Graco say publicly front seat is a great place as long as airbag is deactivated. It's on their websites in Europe.

- Car brands such as Volvo, Volkswagen, Audi, etc say publicly front seat is just as safe as the rear seat.

- Europe has Isofix instead of LATCH. Newer cars have Isofix in front passenger seat so kids can sit there from infant age throughout booster age.

- I have the privilege of working closely with the elite in the world in car seat safety. The safety of front seat placement with a deactivated airbags is never debated because everyone with in depth knowledge know it's extremely safe.

Thank you for your post & link. I knew Sweden had good statistics but didn't realize just how good. Whats taking the rest of the world so long to follow?? Thats really sad there are hundreds of children dying needlessly (in other countries)
I noticed the RF seat (to 55 lbs) on that site and wondered is it possible for a U.S buyer to order one too? Would it work in one of our cars? I was thinking 45 lbs is the maximum but would love to get one of those 55 seats if I could. Shipping would probably be outragious but was just wondering whether this was even a possibility or if they werent allowed to ship here or something.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by newmum35

Thank you for your post & link. I knew Sweden had good statistics but didn't realize just how good. Whats taking the rest of the world so long to follow?? Thats really sad there are hundreds of children dying needlessly (in other countries)
I noticed the RF seat (to 55 lbs) on that site and wondered is it possible for a U.S buyer to order one too? Would it work in one of our cars? I was thinking 45 lbs is the maximum but would love to get one of those 55 seats if I could. Shipping would probably be outragious but was just wondering whether this was even a possibility or if they werent allowed to ship here or something.

It is technically illegal to use a non US seat in the US.

-Angela

[Jessnet]

[QUOTE=an_aurora;15791957]

Originally Posted by Jessnet

Safely and legally, not you cannot.

Actually, I *finally* looked this up. Something that I needed to do for awhile because I had been afraid I was vaguely breaking the law

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/chapt301.html

this is what is says -
"Sec. 30122. Making safety devices and elements inoperative

1. DEFINITION In this section, "motor vehicle repair business" means a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.

2. PROHIBITION A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."


It is NOT illegal for the owner of the car to deactivate the airbags; it's just illegal for 3rd party repair shops, dealers,etc to do it. This is saying that is okay for YOU to do it to your own car.

[sapphire_chan]

Originally Posted by LAWoman

http://www.safercar.gov/staticfiles/...ch_Request.pdf

Good luck!

Originally Posted by an_aurora

Safely and legally, not you cannot.

Originally Posted by Jessnet

Actually, I *finally* looked this up. Something that I needed to do for awhile because I had been afraid I was vaguely breaking the law

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/standards/chapt301.html

this is what is says -
"Sec. 30122. Making safety devices and elements inoperative

1. DEFINITION In this section, "motor vehicle repair business" means a person holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.

2. PROHIBITION A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle or equipment will not be used (except for testing or a similar purpose during maintenance or repair) when the device or element is inoperative."


It is NOT illegal for the owner of the car to deactivate the airbags; it's just illegal for 3rd party repair shops, dealers,etc to do it. This is saying that is okay for YOU to do it to your own car.

I think the form above does in fact make it okay to get a 3rd party to turn off the airbag.

ETA: Yep. It does in fact authorize dealers and such to install an ON/OFF switch for either the driver or passenger airbag.

[sapphire_chan]

Drat. The form is expired.
Air Bag Division at 202-366-0296 may have more information. Apparently they're only going to approve on/off switch installs through 2012 so I don't know what's up with that.

[bcgamermom]

I have an older ford explorer with no PSAB and my 7 1/2 yr old has to sit in the front because there's no room in the back, it was either he sit in the middle with a non locking lap belt only or in a booster seat in the front so I opt for the front. IMHO I think a child is safer in the front then in the third row of a van, my mom was rear ended in town by a small car and had the entire rear end of her car folded under, if there had been a child in a third row seat they would have been crushed.

We all do what we have to do and I know for me even 2K for a used minivan is out of the question, gas to make more then one trip to the grocery store a week is out of the question so we make due with what we have.

[Adventuredad]

An_Aurora:

Original Poster posted this:

Would it be terrible-horrible-no-good to let DS ride in the front seat of the car if we all have to go somewhere together? It has passenger side AB, but I believe it can be turned off. My state has no law about how old for FS.

- Some airbags in US can be turned off as you know (?)

Which is completely a moot point since the OP's car, along withe all passenger cars in the US, cannot have the airbags deactivated.

And, since you have yet to present any sources for your above statements, I'll stick with the much-supported statement that the back seat is safest for anyone, and children under the age of 13 should never ride in the front seat.

Since you are on the internet I assume you can also follow the link I posted for you. I have also provided about ten sources to you on earlier occasions. Britax , BeSafe, Volvo, Audi, Volkswagen all say the same thing, front seat is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. All car brands in Europe actually do, since Isofix now is standard in the front seat. Isofix is our LATCH and meant exclusively for children. Surf in to the Swedish web page of pretty much any brand and you can read the facts about front seat.

You can follow this link for some sources. Britax, BeSafe, Folksam, Volvo (with VW, Audi, etc), Swedish NHTSA, etc. This sources actually have experience with kids in the front seat and are not stuck in the 1980's. Many still believe the earth is flat, believing something which is wrong doesn't automatically make it right.

US is 30 years behind in car seat safety and has no experience in keeping children in the front seat. It's no wonder the advice is bad. The policy of not being able to deactivate airbag in front seat and recommending rear seat is meant to protect kids but it has the opposite effect since parents are anyway keeping kids up front with airbag deactivated.

I have mentioned this many times before: Anyone working seriously with car seat safety know that the front seat, RF or FF, is an excellent place for a child as long as airbag is deactivated. This is a fact and not debated among knowledgable peers.