Back into the Booster

[Lolly]

I think you are lucky that our state has already done this years ago. That way, those not freakishly tall 8 yos who weigh more than the limit on the boosters (of the time) now have boosters with higher weight limits. My comment on it was that if ds got his butt stuck in the booster, he wasn't going to use it. No, he wasn't hugely obese, he was tall for his age (just not freakishly so) and built solid as a boulder. My personal opinion, the government really should stay out of parental decisions. Fyi, my girls (older than ds) had stayed in boosters until they were 8, 9, and 10 before the law was passed. Ds was just...quite large. Honestly, the police would have had to check his birth certificate to know he was only 8. Most people assumed he was 10.

[Catwoman]

This saddens me. Because of statements like this, children are being trained with a mindset to choose what 'looks better' over what is safest for them.

 

Have you ever watched crash test videos of a boostered vs non boostered child? They are eye opening.

 

Take a good look at the 'dummy' in this video. He is the size/weight of an average 10 yr old. (Notice especially how he 'submarines' and where the shoulder-belt portion of the belt hits him :( )

 

 

 

My kids are petite. My oldest DD rode in a booster until she was almost 13. My son will be 12 next month and he's still in a booster. I could care less how it looks. I care that they are safe.

 

:iagree:

[Dmmetler]

What drove me nuts was that DD's 5 point harness car seat that was supposed to convert to a booster when she got too tall for the harness EXPIRED before she was legally old enough to not need a booster-and, really, before she'd outgrown the 5 point! Admittedly, I have a tiny kid-but it would have been nice for the car seat that was supposed to go from 20 lbs to 120 to have lasted DD more than 20 lbs of growth before I had to discard and replace it!

[kalanamak]

We have the nice Sunshine Kids booster with a removable back. Now that kiddo is over 60 lbs and 4' 8" I offered to take the back off and just use the seat. Nope. He likes it with the back.

[Julie in CA]

With bubble wrap.

And helmets. :001_huh:

[Mimm]

I'm pretty sure that was already the law in MO. At least, that's what we followed. My kids both looked forward to turning eight when they could ditch the booster. :)

[shinyhappypeople]

In this case, I'd have to disagree. The law takes away any opportunity for parents to use common sense. Michigan has had this same law for about 2 years now. In my minivan, my now-7yo fits better with a booster; in my mom's SUV, the seatbelt fits her better without the booster. But putting her in what would be the safer situation in the SUV means risking a ticket. As a parent, I should be able to look at the fit and decide based on child and vehicle, not have to base it on a standard that works maybe 75% of the time. Yes, I realize not all parents have the sense to know what a good fit looks like, but that's a different problem that no law is going to help.

 

Bingo (all of it, but esp. the bolded).

[sassenach]

My oldest didn't make it out of a booster till she was 12. We have a full sized van with seatbelts that absolutely don't fit right on anyone smaller than adult sized. Basically, dd had to hit puberty to graduate from the booster. Ds11 is in a special needs car seat, ds9 is in a booster (despite being a very tall kid) and dd7 is in a 5 point. In my husband's passat ds9 sits without the booster and dd7 uses a booster. I like the law. It helps my kids to not be freaks. Oh, and it will save lives.

[Heidi @ Mt Hope]

I figure the way it is going everyone will be required to be in seats with 5 point restraints before it is all said and done.

 

:iagree:

[Celia]

The law in my province is until they're nine, they must be in a booster, unless they're 4'9"

[Mommy22alyns]

Huh? :confused:

 

I guess I'm weird in that I could care less how it looks for my almost 9 year old to be in a booster. I can plainly see with my eyes that a seatbelt alone isn't the best protection (fwiw, she is 55 pounds and probably 52 inches by my memory).

 

 

I agree as well. Rebecca will be 9 in March, is only 51.5" tall and 51 lbs, and is still 5 pt. harnessed. There's no way she could be in there with only a seatbelt.

[Tutor]

It's kind of scary that I am only 4 inches away from needing a booster seat. :tongue_smilie:

[mom2scouts]

My 9 year old still sits in a booster and he's perfectly happy doing it. My 5 year old is still in a harnessed carseat, but she's so tiny that she'll probably be in a booster seat until she can drive!

[jplain]

It isn't law in my state, but mine will be boostered until they pass the 5 point test

When dealing with carseats, the laws of physics matter more than the laws of a state.

:iagree:

 

And besides, my 8yo loves her booster seat. She leans her head on the head wings if she wants to doze.

[Mynyel]

I never really thought about it. Both my kids stayed in the seat until the seat belt fit right. I have no idea what age it was. It just makes sense to me.

 

Technically I could probably use a booster. I am 5'4" but the blasted seat-belt still doesn't fit right. :tongue_smilie:

[Laura Corin]

Hobbes is short for his age and is still in a high-backed booster. None of his friends are, whatever their height. He doesn't get to sit without a booster until the seat belt sits right and he can bend his knees towards the floor whilst his back is fully against the backrest.

 

FWIW, his older brother only got into the front seat on his fifteenth birthday (despite being 5'9").

 

I look at risks head on: out on their own enjoying the woods=low risk. Riding in the front seat of a car/back seat without a booster when too short=high risk.

 

Laura

[RoughCollie]

I asked our pediatrician the booster seat question. She said they had to be in a booster seat until they weighed over 80 lbs., and could ride in the front seat when they were over 5' tall and weighed over 100 lbs.

 

My boys were short and their weights ranged from 1st to 10th percentile due to extreme prematurity, and I was afraid they would be in those booster seats forever. I think they were, until age 11 or 12.

[Murphy101]

I asked our pediatrician the booster seat question. She said they had to be in a booster seat until they weighed over 80 lbs., and could ride in the front seat when they were over 5' tall and weighed over 100 lbs.

 

My boys were short and their weights ranged from 1st to 10th percentile due to extreme prematurity, and I was afraid they would be in those booster seats forever. I think they were, until age 11 or 12.

 

Oh geez.

 

My 5' best friend and my 16 year old wouldn't be able to drive!

[jplain]

Oh geez.

 

My 5' best friend and my 16 year old wouldn't be able to drive!

This isn't about drivers. It is about passengers. If you're the passenger, you're safer in the back seat until you're heavier/taller, and better fit the seat. For obvious reasons, a driver must be in the front seat. ;) No one is suggesting that small adults shouldn't be allowed to drive.

 

However, in the interest of safety, small drivers DO need make sure they're able to pass the 5-step test in whatever vehicle they're operating. This isn't so very difficult, because the Asian car companies tend to design to fit smaller adults, and car manufacturers now make lap-shoulder belts adjustable for height. If a small adult really can't find a vehicle that allows them to pass the 5-step test, they should consider having the car modified to fit.

[brehon]

Oh geez.

 

My 5' best friend and my 16 year old wouldn't be able to drive!

 

There is a significant difference in musculature and bone density between adults/almost adults and kids. Height is only 1 factor in safety. You cannot, CANNOT, compare kids and adults who share the same height.

 

Kids can be ejected from otherwise properly secured seat belts regardless of where the shoulder belt hits. The seat belt system in cars are meant for adults, not kids.

 

Yes, your kids are safer by not being in a car. That is simply not realistic for most people. That being so having them *properly* restrained is safest. The make/model of car has almost no bearing on kids' safety in MVCs, especially major ones. Having them in the proper carseat/booster seat has a significant bearing on their safety.

 

I speak as one who has pulled dead kids (yes, plural) from wrecks they probably would have survived had they been properly restrained. In other words the adults had minor injuries because the seat belts fit them correctly. Until and unless you have experienced that all the talk about bubblewrap is just hot air.

 

Yeah, I am a little sensitive on this topic. I don't normally support a lot of regulation and would agree that there are a lot of ridiculous laws. Laws requiring kids to use boosters until the car's seat belt fit correctly don't fall in that catagory, IMNSHO. I'd also agree that if cars had adjustable seat belt systems this might be a moot point, though I don't know how much safety is lost by adding adjustability.

 

I think the 5-point test is the best for determining when kids are ready to move out of boosters. And I also think the public needs to be better educated on why boosters are so important and why seat belts for most kids simply aren't safe. There should also be better education on the 5-point test itself. However, even on this board, there are people who can't be convinced of the safety of booster seats for the over 4 crowd. In my world we call this job security.

 

For reference, we live on almost 12 acres and my kids basically have the run of the land. I'm not a "helicopter parent" by any means.

[tammyw]

There is a significant difference in musculature and bone density between adults/almost adults and kids. Height is only 1 factor in safety. You cannot, CANNOT, compare kids and adults who share the same height.

 

Kids can be ejected from otherwise properly secured seat belts regardless of where the shoulder belt hits. The seat belt system in cars are meant for adults, not kids.

 

Yes, your kids are safer by not being in a car. That is simply not realistic for most people. That being so having them *properly* restrained is safest. The make/model of car has almost no bearing on kids' safety in MVCs, especially major ones. Having them in the proper carseat/booster seat has a significant bearing on their safety.

 

I speak as one who has pulled dead kids (yes, plural) from wrecks they probably would have survived had they been properly restrained. In other words the adults had minor injuries because the seat belts fit them correctly. Until and unless you have experienced that all the talk about bubblewrap is just hot air.

 

Yeah, I am a little sensitive on this topic. I don't normally support a lot of regulation and would agree that there are a lot of ridiculous laws. Laws requiring kids to use boosters until the car's seat belt fit correctly don't fall in that catagory, IMNSHO. I'd also agree that if cars had adjustable seat belt systems this might be a moot point, though I don't know how much safety is lost by adding adjustability.

 

I think the 5-point test is the best for determining when kids are ready to move out of boosters. And I also think the public needs to be better educated on why boosters are so important and why seat belts for most kids simply aren't safe. There should also be better education on the 5-point test itself. However, even on this board, there are people who can't be convinced of the safety of booster seats for the over 4 crowd. In my world we call this job security.

 

For reference, we live on almost 12 acres and my kids basically have the run of the land. I'm not a "helicopter parent" by any means.

 

I appreciate you coming to post about this. I'm incredibly surprised by some of the comments/feedback here, simply because we're talking about the safety of children here. I feel the same about anything safety related - there's no reason to take unnecessary risks. I feel the same about helmets whenever riding bikes or scooters. We had a friend over once who i caught riding a scooter without a helmet. I made her IMMEDIATELY get off. She said "my mom lets me ride without a helmet" to which I said - when you are under my care, you will wear a helmet or else not ride at all.

 

For those who feel that we don't need laws to tell us what to do - some of us don't need laws to do the right thing, others do. Some people will break the laws regardless - eg drinking and driving. I still think it's important to have those laws in place, which will hopefully punish people who break the laws. I don't see how laws that are meant to protect children and prevent deaths could be considered ridiculous.

 

I also hate the idea of kids thinking that booster seats look "babyish". I've had kids ask my children - why are you in a baby seat? Where do they learn this? If parents don't give an option, knowing it's the safest choice until they are large enough, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

My children know - they will be in their seats until they are big enough to sit safely without. We recently did the 5 point safety test with dd (almost 9 years old) so that she could see she was not ready to sit with just a seatbelt. This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I've always been the mom particular about proper seat installation. When mine were very little, I took our car to the local fire station to make sure everything was tight enough and secure enough - they told me they don't usually install it as well as I did. It's just that important to me. But then again, I've spent hours and hours over the years researching this topic on car seat message boards - making sure I bought the safest seats, best for their size/age, etc., regardless of the cost. Doing everything I can to protect them in case of an accident is important to me. I don't ever want to have to think "if only I had...."

 

Pediatricians (since it sounds like that's where people get their advice) should be handing out the 5 point seat test to everyone who comes through their doors, rather than just saying "here's what the law is in our state" which is clearly random and not well thought out. I think the law should actually not be the way it is - I think the law should state that kids are to be in boosters until they pass the 5 point test. THAT would be a sensible law in every single state.

[jplain]

I think the law should actually not be the way it is - I think the law should state that kids are to be in boosters until they pass the 5 point test. THAT would be a sensible law in every single state.

:iagree:

 

Here's what my law would be:

 

1. Rear-facing to 35 lbs. This is evidence-based. Rear-facing occupants fare better in collisions.

 

2. Forward-facing 5-point harness until age 5 and over 40 lbs. Again, this is evidence based. Though data is limited, harnessed seats appear to give better outcomes until a child reaches age 5 and 40 pounds.

 

3. Booster until able to pass the 5-point test or old enough to get a driver's permit. I'd prefer children be in highback boosters as long as possible, but there's no data sufficient to justify requiring it.

 

However, I might want to write in something to prevent people from moving their 5yos from a harnessed seat straight into a backless booster. Most 5yos are not mature enough to sit properly in a backless booster, and a backless booster often can't position the belt properly for a normal-sized 5yo. Maybe I'd want to require highback boosters until age 6 or 7? But again, that's not solidly evidence-based (yet!), so I'd be okay with leaving it out.

Edited January 21, 2012 by jplain

[SKL]

:iagree:

 

Here's what my law would be:

 

1. Rear-facing to 35 lbs. This is evidence-based. Rear-facing occupants fare better in collisions.

 

2. Forward-facing 5-point harness until age 5 and over 40 lbs. Again, this is evidence based. Though data is limited, harnessed seats appear to give better outcomes until a child reaches age 5 and 40 pounds.

 

3. Booster until able to pass the 5-point test or old enough to get a driver's permit. I'd prefer children be in highback boosters as long as possible, but there's no data sufficient to justify requiring it.

 

However, I might want to write in something to prevent people from moving their 5yos from a harnessed seat straight into a backless booster. Most 5yos are not mature enough to sit properly in a backless booster, and a backless booster often can't position the belt properly for a normal-sized 5yo. Maybe I'd want to require highback boosters until age 6 or 7? But again, that's not solidly evidence-based (yet!), so I'd be okay with leaving it out.

 

Nope. My 5yo is petite but she is physically mature and extremely athletic. You would have her still rear-facing by law, while some chubby 1-2yos would be FF. Ha - if we had a law to force everything that is "evidence - based," then it should be law for all children to attend church each Sunday, regardless of their parents' faith. Who needs parents' rights, anyway?

 

Regarding RF (which I did up to age 2.5): I believe there is a great benefit to children being able to see and discuss where they are going, versus the patch of sky they can see out the back window. (Hey, there's a traffic light, stop sign, horsies, bla bla bla.) Also, some kids get carsick while rear-facing. Further, there are many kinds of accidents where RF is not safest. The only accident my kids were involved in was us being rear-ended at a stoplight (my kids were 4.5); RF would have been worse in that case. Before my kids were born, I was rear-ended by a jackknifing semi on the freeway (ice accident). Any RF kids in that accident would have been toast. So it's not always safer.

 

I've done my research and found that the actual number of kids who are killed or severely injured while FF in cases where RF would have helped is extremely small - not enough to trump, e.g., a preschooler puking on herself during every car trip or sitting with nothing to look at during a long car drive. In short, there's a lot to the RF decision that the "evidence" glosses over.

 

It should be a cost-and-benefit test for each individual child, and that's why it should not be law.

Edited January 21, 2012 by SKL

[ktgrok]

Nope. My 5yo is petite but she is physically mature and extremely athletic. You would have her still rear-facing by law, while some chubby 1-2yos would be FF. Ha - if we had a law to force everything that is "evidence - based," then it should be law for all children to attend church each Sunday, regardless of their parents' faith. Who needs parents' rights, anyway?

 

Regarding RF (which I did up to age 2.5): I believe there is a great benefit to children being able to see and discuss where they are going, versus the patch of sky they can see out the back window. (Hey, there's a traffic light, stop sign, horsies, bla bla bla.) Also, some kids get carsick while rear-facing. Further, there are many kinds of accidents where RF is not safest. The only accident my kids were involved in was us being rear-ended at a stoplight (my kids were 4.5); RF would have been worse in that case. Before my kids were born, I was rear-ended by a jackknifing semi on the freeway (ice accident). Any RF kids in that accident would have been toast. So it's not always safer.

 

I've done my research and found that the actual number of kids who are killed or severely injured while FF in cases where RF would have helped is extremely small - not enough to trump, e.g., a preschooler puking on herself during every car trip or sitting with nothing to look at during a long car drive. In short, there's a lot to the RF decision that the "evidence" glosses over.

 

It should be a cost-and-benefit test for each individual child, and that's why it should not be law.

 

I'll add in that some kids need to be forward facing so that mom can reach back and stop them from escaping....sigh. My almost 2 year old (in two weeks) can get out of any car seat. I had to order a special strap from new zealand to keep her in. It works 95% of the time. The other times I have to reach back and grab a hand, or at least be able to keep a close eye on her,and giver her the stink eye if she tries anything. I had planned to keep her rear facing until the weight limit of 30lbs (on this seat). But she is 25 and that will have to do.

[5kidsforME]

In my province it used to be a weight or height issue. In the past, it didn't matter in our case as ds has always been very tall for his age, at every age. But, I have to say that I seriously doubt I would have put my 6, 7 or 8 year old in a booster seat. Under our new guidelines it includes a weight AND height requirement, meaning that one must be above a certain weight AND over a certain height. At 12 years old, my 5'6" ds doesn't meet the weight requirement. I'm not putting him in a g** d*** booster seat. I think regulating it this way is legislative overkill.

 

Amen!!

[jplain]

Nope. My 5yo is petite but she is physically mature and extremely athletic. You would have her still rear-facing by law, while some chubby 1-2yos would be FF.

You might think it ridiculous, but any person of any weight is statistically safer rear-facing. (Other than the driver, for obvious reasons. ;)) The child's age is irrelevant. A small, light person is much more vulnerable in a collision than a larger person. Yes, there are situations in which rear-facing is not an advantage, but those situations occur much less frequently.

 

The bottom line is that in the majority of real life accidents, rear-facing occupants fare better. Period.

 

Considering that riding in a car is by far the most dangerous thing most of us do, I'm not swayed by whether a child is able to see the horsies. Carsickness isn't something to make light of, but plenty of parents who've btdt are happy to share solutions and strategies that don't involve turning a child FF.

 

I've done my research and found that the actual number of kids who are killed or severely injured while FF in cases where RF would have helped is extremely small...

I'd love to see this research. I'm sure the car seat techs over at the car-seat.org forums would be interested too. I'd urge you to post it for their comments. They do this for a living, and many of them follow the research very carefully. Yet I've never seen any of them suggest what you've stated above.

[SKL]

You might think it ridiculous, but any person of any weight is statistically safer rear-facing. (Other than the driver, for obvious reasons. ;)) The child's age is irrelevant. A small, light person is much more vulnerable in a collision than a larger person. Yes, there are situations in which rear-facing is not an advantage, but those situations occur much less frequently.

 

The bottom line is that in the majority of real life accidents, rear-facing occupants fare better. Period.

 

Considering that riding in a car is by far the most dangerous thing most of us do, I'm not swayed by whether a child is able to see the horsies. Carsickness isn't something to make light of, but plenty of parents who've btdt are happy to share solutions and strategies that don't involve turning a child FF.

 

I'd love to see this research. I'm sure the car seat techs over at the car-seat.org forums would be interested too. I'd urge you to post it for their comments. They do this for a living, and many of them follow the research very carefully. Yet I've never seen any of them suggest what you've stated above.

 

It's been about half a year since I did that research, and I did not save it. But the fact is that RF is only safer in certain types of accidents, and it's only a tiny bit safer. My research also debunked the argument that head-on accidents are more frequent than rear-enders. (They are double-counting the rear-enders as one rear-ender and one front-ender. Makes sense, since nearly every road accident I've experienced 45 years has been a rear-ender, usually the other person hitting my rear.) The law should be focusing on the far more significant dangers of parents who don't bother to use any child restraint, who speed, drive while drunk/impaired/texting, etc.

 

My research also would disagree with your comment that a smaller, lighter person is in more danger. A slim, strong, muscular person is safer than a chubbier person of the same weight because the seat belt will perform more correctly without all that "extra padding."

 

And even if it were true that RF is safer for everyone all the time, it still is not fair to make a law that penalizes petite people for no good reason. You cannot say there's evidence to prove that an athletic but petite 5yo is less safe FF than every 36-lb child.

Edited January 21, 2012 by SKL

[Dmmetler]

My DD would have been RF until age 6 1/2 under that plan-and she was a kid who was riding with her knees bent up to her chest before she reached 20 lbs. I cannot imagine her at 6 1/2 RF being at ALL comfortable. It's not a matter of being able to see the horsies-it's a matter of leg length! She's not tall for her age, but all of her height is in her legs.

 

She'll almost certainly be in a booster until age 10+, because as a short adult, I'm well aware that seatbelts often don't fit ME right (and in an older car DH owned when we got married, which didn't have adjustable seatbelts, I had one of the "Safe fit" things designed for kids specifically so the belts hit at the correct point, same benefit as a booster. Except that a booster wouldn't have let me reach the pedals. Needless to say, I drove that car as little as possible-and when we bought cars as a family, buying ones that the seatbelts fit me in were a priority), but there was no way I can see that she could have ridden rear facing to 35 lbs short of a complete car seat redesign. And I mean the seats in the car, not her physical car seat.

[Dmmetler]

This isn't about drivers. It is about passengers. If you're the passenger, you're safer in the back seat until you're heavier/taller, and better fit the seat. For obvious reasons, a driver must be in the front seat. ;) No one is suggesting that small adults shouldn't be allowed to drive.

 

However, in the interest of safety, small drivers DO need make sure they're able to pass the 5-step test in whatever vehicle they're operating. This isn't so very difficult, because the Asian car companies tend to design to fit smaller adults, and car manufacturers now make lap-shoulder belts adjustable for height. If a small adult really can't find a vehicle that allows them to pass the 5-step test, they should consider having the car modified to fit.

 

As a short adult, I've discovered that I can't buy/drive an American made car unless it has a lot of adjustable features, but my former Toyota and my current Kia are great :). I expect that my DD will also be better off in Asian cars.

 

What we do run into, though, is that with the exception of minivans and SUVs, the cars that are great for me, have DH driving with his head hitting the ceiling unless he reclines the front seat slightly-and while that may have been the intent (or, at least, car salesmen say it is), he doesn't feel comfortably or safe driving reclined.

[scrappyhappymama]

If parents won't make a safe car seat choice without a law, it's largely because the public is not being educated on child car safety. If everyone was educated about the "five point test," most would come to a safe decision without a law. But this law does not promote the 5-point test. It promotes blind adherence to arbitrary minimum standards.

 

The other issue is: many people won't even realize this law exists, and since they also haven't been educated about the 5-point test, their children will be less safe than if they'd just been given the tools to decide for themselves.

 

Yes, there will be people who won't even put their kids in seat belts. This law will do nothing to help those kids, either.

 

I am a big believer in education and I think that the idea one previous poster mentioned about pediatricians passing out the 5-pt test rather than the law is a great one.

 

However, I think the law is a good one. I disagree with the point above that education alone is enough to get people to make the right safety decisions. Our state has had this same law on the books now for a few years. I don't remember exactly how many, but my oldest was over four and some of his peers were already out of boosters, simply because the law said they could be. When the law changed, there was a lot of grumbling among parents about having to rebuy boosters and how ridiculous it was, despite all the information provided about improved safety for kids ages 4-8. Never, not once, have I heard a parent state that their child is out of a booster because they pass the 5 pt test. However, I have heard this more times than I can count:

 

8 year olds look ridiculous in boosters to my eye.

 

My nine year old is still in a backless booster and likely will be for some time to come since he is only 52" tall and about 52lbs. My seven year old still is in a 5 pt harness. He actually would probably be fine in a regular booster and a belt, but we have three car seat across right now, so he wouldn't be able to easily buckle the regular belt each time. So he's staying in the harness for now, and he doesn't mind (my boys all call them astronaut chairs). I couldn't care less if people think they look ridiculous, because I think they look SAFE. But I am glad that now MOST of my boys peers are also still in boosters too, because of the law, so they no longer stand out and their friends are safer too.

[Guest]

This saddens me. Because of statements like this, children are being trained with a mindset to choose what 'looks better' over what is safest for them.

 

Have you ever watched crash test videos of a boostered vs non boostered child? They are eye opening.

 

Take a good look at the 'dummy' in this video. He is the size/weight of an average 10 yr old. (Notice especially how he 'submarines' and where the shoulder-belt portion of the belt hits him :( )

 

 

 

My kids are petite. My oldest DD rode in a booster until she was almost 13. My son will be 12 next month and he's still in a booster. I could care less how it looks. I care that they are safe.

 

Come on, now. I am not training my kids to make decision based on how things look. :rolleyes: I am an older mom. My point of reference is the millions of children who were out of boosters by the time they were 4. So, to me, 8 year olds look as logical in a booster seat as elephants look on roller skates.

 

My sister was absurdly petite and needed cushions to see over the dashboard when she drove. She would never have made it out of booster seat by these guidelines, so that plays into my view.

 

I'm not telling anyone to toss their booster seat if they love them and it makes them feel better. Do whatever you like. To me, it seems excessively cautious, but I freely admit that I have never had a single car accident, so I'm sure I have no sense of imminent danger based on history.

 

My older son is twelve and is neither very large nor petite for his age. He is of average size. Trying to imagine him in a booster seat is absolutely laughable at this point. He hasn't been in one since probably half his life ago. Maybe longer.

 

 

No, it isn't. It's a mindset of thinking it looks weird to bubble wrap kids. I'm sure that would be safer too, but I'm not doing it either. Not riding in a vehicle at all would be the safest for them, but I don't see anyone posing that. Yet.

 

By the standards many pose here, it should be illegal due to lack of safety for many adults to use seatbelts only.

 

It isn't about not wanting our kids safe.

 

It is simply a different perspective of what constitutes reasonable safety.

 

Personally, I think it's stupid as all heck that people spend a small fortune on vehicles and then have to buy seats to make them safe for over half the population to ride in. I think lapbelts should be done away with in favor of 5 pt harnesses for all passengers. And That is even tho I hate them. Carseats + arthritic hands + winter = very frustrating heck.

 

:iagree: Exactly.

[Laura Corin]

My sister was absurdly petite and needed cushions to see over the dashboard when she drove. She would never have made it out of booster seat by these guidelines, so that plays into my view.

 

 

A 12yo who needs a booster does not have a strong skeleton (because s/he has not yet gone through puberty fully) and therefore cannot take the stresses that an adult can. My son will still be in a booster in a few months time when he's 12 unless he has a growth spurt: the seat belt does not fit him. That's not laughable - it's sensible.

 

Laura

Edited January 21, 2012 by Laura Corin

[Guest]

A 12yo who needs a booster does not have a strong skeleton (because s/he has not yet gone through puberty fully) and therefore cannot take the stresses that an adult can. My son will still be in a booster in a few months time unless he has a growth spurt: the seat belt does not fit him. That's not laughable - it's sensible.

 

Laura

 

I actually doubt that very much as it applied to my sister. She was not just short but insanely tiny. She had diabetes and was not very healthy. She died at 42. What would you say of women with osteoporosis? Should they have booster seats because their bones are more fragile?

 

Even so - do whatever you wish. I'm sure it's very sensible, if it doesn't cause you to convulse with laughter at the sight of him. ;)

[Laura Corin]

What would you say of women with osteoporosis? Should they have booster seats because their bones are more fragile?

 

My MIL had osteoporosis and was under 5' tall. I can't imagine the kind of injuries that she would have sustained in an accident with her ill-fitting seat belt. There are adapted cars for people with disabilities to allow them to drive, so maybe there should also be be adaptations to make them as safe as the able bodied. ETA: there are actually purpose-designed cushions.

 

No, seeing my son in a booster seat doesn't make me laugh, it just makes me glad that he's well prepared for a drunk driver or a deer on the road.

 

Laura

Edited January 21, 2012 by Laura Corin

[Mommy22alyns]

There is a significant difference in musculature and bone density between adults/almost adults and kids. Height is only 1 factor in safety. You cannot, CANNOT, compare kids and adults who share the same height.

 

Kids can be ejected from otherwise properly secured seat belts regardless of where the shoulder belt hits. The seat belt system in cars are meant for adults, not kids.

 

Yes, your kids are safer by not being in a car. That is simply not realistic for most people. That being so having them *properly* restrained is safest. The make/model of car has almost no bearing on kids' safety in MVCs, especially major ones. Having them in the proper carseat/booster seat has a significant bearing on their safety.

 

I speak as one who has pulled dead kids (yes, plural) from wrecks they probably would have survived had they been properly restrained. In other words the adults had minor injuries because the seat belts fit them correctly. Until and unless you have experienced that all the talk about bubblewrap is just hot air.

 

Yeah, I am a little sensitive on this topic. I don't normally support a lot of regulation and would agree that there are a lot of ridiculous laws. Laws requiring kids to use boosters until the car's seat belt fit correctly don't fall in that catagory, IMNSHO. I'd also agree that if cars had adjustable seat belt systems this might be a moot point, though I don't know how much safety is lost by adding adjustability.

 

I think the 5-point test is the best for determining when kids are ready to move out of boosters. And I also think the public needs to be better educated on why boosters are so important and why seat belts for most kids simply aren't safe. There should also be better education on the 5-point test itself. However, even on this board, there are people who can't be convinced of the safety of booster seats for the over 4 crowd. In my world we call this job security.

 

For reference, we live on almost 12 acres and my kids basically have the run of the land. I'm not a "helicopter parent" by any means.

 

 

Exactly! I am so sick of hearing this argument every time carseat safety comes up. And I am appalled to hear that grown adults are sniggering behind their hands at my very SAFE almost 9 yo in a 5 pt. harness. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Matryoshka]

I actually doubt that very much as it applied to my sister. She was not just short but insanely tiny. She had diabetes and was not very healthy. She died at 42. What would you say of women with osteoporosis? Should they have booster seats because their bones are more fragile?

 

 

A booster doesn't help with the bone density issue - that problem is with the air bag in the front seat (why kids 14 and under shouldn't sit in the front seat with an airbag. Yes, my 13yo who is taller than I am is annoyed she can't sit in the front seat yet. Too bad). I do wonder about adults with osteoporosis - probably they should disable the airbag.

 

A booster ensures that the seat belt sits properly across bone, not soft tissue, preventing organ damage in a crash. That's why they're called "belt-positioning boosters." Yes, if the seat belt doesn't fit properly, or you can't see over the dash, I think a booster for a very short adult would be an excellent idea. Better than pillows, certainly.

[kitten18]

 

Even so - do whatever you wish. I'm sure it's very sensible, if it doesn't cause you to convulse with laughter at the sight of him. ;)

Wow, that was shockingly rude! :glare:

[Shellydon]

 

Even so - do whatever you wish. I'm sure it's very sensible, if it doesn't cause you to convulse with laughter at the sight of him. ;)

 

Wow.

Edited January 22, 2012 by Sheldon

[8circles]

Wow, that was shockingly rude! :glare:

 

I agree. I don't get the shark in this thread at all.

[Shellydon]

For those like Quill who are laughing at kids boostered past age 6, let me tell you a story about a friend.

My friend, Charlotte, had three children in 2002, ages 18,16 and 8. One night, the family was traveling home from an out of town visit with family. The father was driving the minivan, 18 yo daughter in the front passenger seat, 16 year old son in the passenger side middle row and Charlotte and her 8 year old son Noah in the back row. Noah was on the passenger side, no booster and Charlotte was in the middle in a lap belt only.

At about 9 pm they were passing through a relatively unpopulated area when they were t-boned in an intersection by a car that didn't stop. The father had a punctured lung and other injuries. The 18 yo had a broken leg. The 16 yo had cuts/bruises. The 8 yo died on impact from a broken neck from the seat belt. Since he wasn't in a booster, the belt did not fit him properly. Charlotte heard his neck break. Charlotte suffered a broken back from the lap only belt and is paralyzed and in a wheelchair today.

 

I can promise you she wishes more than anything that a law that required her 8 year old baby boy to be in a booster existed in 2002. He would still be alive.

[ChandlerMom]

My 99th %ile dd was in a 5pt harness until her 8th b'day (she had outgrown her Britax) -- now I'll keep her in a booster until 12yo if I can!!

 

The explanation I've heard is the booster is an artificial crest of the hip bone that doesn't develop until around 12yo. ;) It's that crest that keeps the seatbelt from squishing the soft organs in a crash.

 

Heck, we'd ALL be safer in 5pt harnesses. We're mine?!?! LOL

[Catwoman]

For those like Quill who are laughing at kids boostered past age 6, let me tell you a story about a friend.

My friend, Charlotte, had three children in 2002, ages 18,16 and 8. One night, the family was traveling home from an out of town visit with family. The father was driving the minivan, 18 yo daughter in the front passenger seat, 16 year old son in the passenger side middle row and Charlotte and her 8 year old son Noah in the back row. Noah was on the passenger side, no booster and Charlotte was in the middle in a lap belt only.

At about 9 pm they were passing through a relatively unpopulated area when they were t-boned in an intersection by a car that didn't stop. The father had a punctured lung and other injuries. The 18 yo had a broken leg. The 16 yo had cuts/bruises. The 8 yo died on impact from a broken neck from the seat belt. Since he wasn't in a booster, the belt did not fit him properly. Charlotte heard his neck break. Charlotte suffered a broken back from the lap only belt and is paralyzed and in a wheelchair today.

 

I can promise you she wishes more than anything that a law that required her 8 year old baby boy to be in a booster existed in 2002. He would still be alive.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

 

I am so very sorry for your friend. :(

[tammyw]

For those like Quill who are laughing at kids boostered past age 6, let me tell you a story about a friend.

My friend, Charlotte, had three children in 2002, ages 18,16 and 8. One night, the family was traveling home from an out of town visit with family. The father was driving the minivan, 18 yo daughter in the front passenger seat, 16 year old son in the passenger side middle row and Charlotte and her 8 year old son Noah in the back row. Noah was on the passenger side, no booster and Charlotte was in the middle in a lap belt only.

At about 9 pm they were passing through a relatively unpopulated area when they were t-boned in an intersection by a car that didn't stop. The father had a punctured lung and other injuries. The 18 yo had a broken leg. The 16 yo had cuts/bruises. The 8 yo died on impact from a broken neck from the seat belt. Since he wasn't in a booster, the belt did not fit him properly. Charlotte heard his neck break. Charlotte suffered a broken back from the lap only belt and is paralyzed and in a wheelchair today.

 

I can promise you she wishes more than anything that a law that required her 8 year old baby boy to be in a booster existed in 2002. He would still be alive.

 

Heartbreaking :(

[Nart]

Two economists (freakonomics guys) studied deaths when a child aged 2-6 was in a car seats/ booster vs. a regular lap and shoulder belt and did not find a statistical difference between the two. The greatest danger is when a child is not restrained at all

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?ex=1189915200&en=641c83d4b0668293&ei=5070

 

I should add that I still won't take that risk and fully intend to keep my kids in boosters for a long time but it is interesting that the car seat industry is huge industry and a better solution would be for car manufacturers to design better backseats for kids since that most back seat passengers are kids.

[Joker]

I kept my kids in boosters until the belts fit them but... Sometimes accidents are serious and it doesn't matter how you're secured in the vehicle. I lost my 54 year old dad and 20 year old brother (who was in the backseat) in a car accident. Their problem wasn't being secured, it was an inexperienced kid going through a stop sign. I let my just turned 12 year old ride in the front. She is 5'4.5" and 100 lbs. She is taller than me!

 

Some of the stories seem to be saying all would be ok if you just do x,y,z. That's just not the case.

[Murphy101]

I kept my kids in boosters until the belts fit them but... Sometimes accidents are serious and it doesn't matter how you're secured in the vehicle. I lost my 54 year old dad and 20 year old brother (who was in the backseat) in a car accident. Their problem wasn't being secured, it was an inexperienced kid going through a stop sign. I let my just turned 12 year old ride in the front. She is 5'4.5" and 100 lbs. She is taller than me!

 

Some of the stories seem to be saying all would be ok if you just do x,y,z. That's just not the case.

 

Indeed. If only.:grouphug:

[Shellydon]

I kept my kids in boosters until the belts fit them but... Sometimes accidents are serious and it doesn't matter how you're secured in the vehicle. I lost my 54 year old dad and 20 year old brother (who was in the backseat) in a car accident. Their problem wasn't being secured, it was an inexperienced kid going through a stop sign. I let my just turned 12 year old ride in the front. She is 5'4.5" and 100 lbs. She is taller than me!

 

Some of the stories seem to be saying all would be ok if you just do x,y,z. That's just not the case.

 

Very true. There are accidents that are not survivable. I just don't want to be responsible for killing my child if the accident WAS survivable.

[Murphy101]

Very true. There are accidents that are not survivable. I just don't want to be responsible for killing my child if the accident WAS survivable.

 

That's just nonsense. That's like saying if my kid dies falling out of a tree, I'm responsible for his death. Yes, I could keep him out of trees. (Well maybe I could. He can be very determined!) But at some point, kids climbing trees becomes an acceptable risk for most parents.

 

That is all anyone here is saying.

 

For them, the age of acceptable risk is younger than it is for you.

 

I don't laugh at parents with 8 year olds who suck pacifiers/thumbs.

I don't laugh at parents who scream at their 10 year old to not climb the trees.

I don't laugh at parents who put a tween in a booster seat.

 

But no, I have zero interest in raising MY children that way and I don't appreciate anyone saying I have to do so in order to be a good and loving parent.

 

And yes, I have a huge problem with companies making a fortune off crappy and less crappy carseats that parents are mandated to purchase and a government regulating ME when the truly safer (and way cheaper) thing to do would be to regulate car companies to put in 5 pt harnesses instead of nearly useless lap/shoulder belts.

[SKL]

For those like Quill who are laughing at kids boostered past age 6, let me tell you a story about a friend.

My friend, Charlotte, had three children in 2002, ages 18,16 and 8. One night, the family was traveling home from an out of town visit with family. The father was driving the minivan, 18 yo daughter in the front passenger seat, 16 year old son in the passenger side middle row and Charlotte and her 8 year old son Noah in the back row. Noah was on the passenger side, no booster and Charlotte was in the middle in a lap belt only.

At about 9 pm they were passing through a relatively unpopulated area when they were t-boned in an intersection by a car that didn't stop. The father had a punctured lung and other injuries. The 18 yo had a broken leg. The 16 yo had cuts/bruises. The 8 yo died on impact from a broken neck from the seat belt. Since he wasn't in a booster, the belt did not fit him properly. Charlotte heard his neck break. Charlotte suffered a broken back from the lap only belt and is paralyzed and in a wheelchair today.

 

I can promise you she wishes more than anything that a law that required her 8 year old baby boy to be in a booster existed in 2002. He would still be alive.

 

I wish she knew about the five-point test, which could also have kept her child alive without a law.

[SKL]

Two economists (freakonomics guys) studied deaths when a child aged 2-6 was in a car seats/ booster vs. a regular lap and shoulder belt and did not find a statistical difference between the two. The greatest danger is when a child is not restrained at all

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?ex=1189915200&en=641c83d4b0668293&ei=5070

 

I should add that I still won't take that risk and fully intend to keep my kids in boosters for a long time but it is interesting that the car seat industry is huge industry and a better solution would be for car manufacturers to design better backseats for kids since that most back seat passengers are kids.

 

Thank you. I agree with all of this.