car PSA: seat child behind an empty seat if possible

[73349]

This article is a little alarming: www.salon.com/2016/03/27/what_automakers_and_regulators_arent_telling_parent_drivers_partner/

 

Apparently a significant cause of injury to children in a rear seat of a car is having the seat in front fail in a crash, throwing an adult backward at them. :(

[BarbecueMom]

Awful. Those poor families. :-(

 

It sounds like the 1yo was forward facing, which is no longer recommended, and the 4yo had a younger sibling who usually sat behind the passenger seat. Constantly swapping the car seats when one kid isn't in the car would surely lead to reinstallation errors (happens here, even with vigilance).

 

Thankfully we haven't had a tragic incident, but on the same theme, if you have fold-down or removable seats, make sure they are fully locked back into place before putting a car seat and kids on them. I have a Kia Sedona, and the back row sometimes sounds like it's locked back into place, but the front latches have completely missed the hooks in the floor. I've had to stop, pull everything out, and reattach the bench before after seeing the row just sitting on top of the hooks.

 

Better seating design might be a more effective solution long-term to protect kids in cars.

Edited March 28, 2016 by BarbecueMom

[SKL]

It's safest to have only one kid, of course, and to put that kid in the safest place in the car.

 

All child deaths are tragic, but I think a mistake is made in implying that all child deaths can be prevented.  The vast majority of MV deaths can be prevented by doing the obvious - drive sober, don't speed, pay attention, buckle up.  The rest is mostly a crap shoot.  I hate that with these mostly unhelpful suggestions, parents will start thinking, "my child could still be with us if we'd done xyz."

[Matryoshka]

It's safest to have only one kid, of course, and to put that kid in the safest place in the car.

 

All child deaths are tragic, but I think a mistake is made in implying that all child deaths can be prevented. The vast majority of MV deaths can be prevented by doing the obvious - drive sober, don't speed, pay attention, buckle up. The rest is mostly a crap shoot. I hate that with these mostly unhelpful suggestions, parents will start thinking, "my child could still be with us if we'd done xyz."

But the thing with the front seat backs collapsing is completely avoidable. It would take about a buck a seat to strengthen them, but code doesn't currently require it, so it isn't done.

[Carol in Cal.]

It's interesting to note that the driver is often killed or severely disabled in that circumstance as well.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Carrie12345]

It's safest to have only one kid, of course, and to put that kid in the safest place in the car.

 

All child deaths are tragic, but I think a mistake is made in implying that all child deaths can be prevented.  The vast majority of MV deaths can be prevented by doing the obvious - drive sober, don't speed, pay attention, buckle up.  The rest is mostly a crap shoot.  I hate that with these mostly unhelpful suggestions, parents will start thinking, "my child could still be with us if we'd done xyz."

 

I absolutely agree with this as an overall concept, but when there ARE steps that are proven to reduce deaths and injuries and those things are kept from us, that's a totally different story.

 

I know I can't control every other driver or condition on the road, and I still go out, willingly accepting a certain degree of risk.  I'm fastidious about proper safety device installation and usage to minimize the risks.  Now I'm being told I might be safer if some shmoe had invested a few extra bucks in my vehicle (that I would have gladly paid for) and I should shrug my shoulders and chalk it up to "life is dangerous"?  I don't think so!

[SKL]

Yes, the manufacturers should fix this if it's fixable, but my point is about telling parents to sit their kids on the other side.  Only one chosen kid can be "safer" in that situation.  Do we choose which kid we love the most?  I really don't see the benefit of this parenting advice.

[Carrie12345]

Yes, the manufacturers should fix this if it's fixable, but my point is about telling parents to sit their kids on the other side.  Only one chosen kid can be "safer" in that situation.  Do we choose which kid we love the most?  I really don't see the benefit of this parenting advice.

 

Maybe I just don't see it because I, fortunately, haven't had to live through that tragedy.  When reading this story, I didn't feel any guilt over the fact that I have a child behind my driver's seat, or that I sit in front of the other child when dh is driving.  I don't feel guilty that I've rarely put any child in a center position (the known safest in a 3-row bench), either.  That's just part of having a big family.

 

The only emotion I feel is anger that people apparently know about this but haven't cared to fix it.

[barnwife]

Yes, the manufacturers should fix this if it's fixable, but my point is about telling parents to sit their kids on the other side.  Only one chosen kid can be "safer" in that situation.  Do we choose which kid we love the most?  I really don't see the benefit of this parenting advice.

SKL said this much more nicely than I could have.

 

 

[Tree Frog]

According to 60 Minutes, who ran a story about this a few weeks back, Audi claims the front seats are supposed to collapse into the back seat in the case of an accident. A couple of quotes really struck me. I can't believe it's an acceptable risk because it's a rare problem, especially because, according to this article and a couple of others, it would cost about a dollar/seat to strengthen the seat. Several car manufacturers already do. (I don't know how to put the quotes in quote boxes, so I've put them in different fonts. The bolding is mine.)

 

The carmaker's attorney argued the seats were designed to absorb the impact of a collision, even showing a crash test video of the seats collapsing while questioning the EMT who responded to the accident scene. The EMT asked, "So you are saying the seat is supposed to do that?"

"Yes, absolutely. Proudly so. It's absorbing energy," the lawyer responded.

 

The jury ruled against Audi even though the seats in question met or exceeded the federal standard for strength. An accident expert hired by CBS News showed us the standard is so low even a banquet chair can pass. In fact, nearly every major American, Japanese and Korean automaker has seen similar cases recently.

 

Improving the seats would not necessarily be expensive. In an earlier seatback failure lawsuit, an engineer being deposed said strengthening them would cost "on the order of a dollar or so."

 

Still, accident experts interviewed for this CBS News investigation say at least three automakers--Mercedes Benz, BMW, and Volvo -- have strengthened their seats well above the NHTSA standard to guard against seatback failure. 

[SKL]

OK but are they saying that it's actually safer for them to collapse into the backseat?  There isn't always a person back there, but there's always a person in the driver's seat.  Maybe that's why they opted for the design that kept the driver alive.

 

Ultimately people have to realize that driving a car is risky.  The risk is small and remote if you're not drunk or acting like a fool, but what risk there is is inherent in the fact of driving.  You accept it when you get behind the wheel.  You know you can't control whether some other drunk or distracted driver is going to plow into you at a high speed.  The car designers can only do so much to protect us.

[3 ladybugs]

I have done this for years. My MIL is morbidly obese (or was till her surgery but she still is more then normal) and so I would stack the kids in the van behind me (I ALWAYS drive). I weigh 135 on a heavy day, so it is the "safest" spot in the car when they are out. It also makes it easier for the person to get in the 3rd row with DS. 

 

It doesn't take a physicist to figure this out. A simple look at how cars are designed will tell you seats will fail with someone over 225 or so!

[Matryoshka]

OK but are they saying that it's actually safer for them to collapse into the backseat?  There isn't always a person back there, but there's always a person in the driver's seat.  Maybe that's why they opted for the design that kept the driver alive.

 

Anyone with more than one kid under 15 or so will have someone sitting behind the driver.  So, they're saying the seats are "designed" to protect the parent by kiiling their child?  Sorry, I don't care.  Even if that were true (and I'll bet you $$$ that's a complete line of bull), I don't think any parent would say, thanks for saving me by having me crush my child to death.  Have you seen the video footage with the crash test dummies?  It is truly, truly horrifying.

 

Ultimately people have to realize that driving a car is risky.  The risk is small and remote if you're not drunk or acting like a fool, but what risk there is is inherent in the fact of driving.  You accept it when you get behind the wheel.  You know you can't control whether some other drunk or distracted driver is going to plow into you at a high speed.  The car designers can only do so much to protect us.

 

$1 per seat doesn't seem too much to ask.  :glare:

Edited April 4, 2016 by Matryoshka

[SKL]

Anyone with more than one kid under 15 or so will have someone sitting behind the driver.  So, they're saying the seats are "designed" to protect the parent by kiiling their child?  Sorry, I don't care.  Even if that were true (and I'll bet you $$$ that's a complete line of bull), I don't think any parent would say, thanks for saving me by having me crush my child to death.  Have you seen the video footage with the crash test dummies?  It is truly, truly horrifying.

 

 

$1 per seat doesn't seem too much to ask.  :glare:

 

What I meant was that many car trips are made with nobody in the back seat.  I would guess that the majority of driving is done without kids in the car.  I don't know the %, but supposing 2/3 of highest-risk driving miles are done without kids in the car, then most of the time it would be better for the driver to be safer.

 

I agree that if it's really just a matter of $1 per seat, they should fix it, but I am skeptical that it's really just a matter of $1 per seat.  There must be more to the decision.

[SKL]

I care as much about kids as the next person, but it's also tragic for a kid to lose a parent.  I don't agree that if both passengers are equally at risk, the life of the child is clearly more valuable than that of the parent.

 

If the fix they are talking about would reduce risk for the child without increasing risk for the parent, then it should be a no-brainer, so why isn't it?

[Bluegoat]

I find myself a little skeptical about these kinds of things.  There are always little things that could be done to improe safety marginally.  They sometimes have trade-offs for safety in other areas, or cost, or whatever.  $1 a seat doesn't seem like much, but how many things could be made safer by a dollar here or there?  It can become kind of never-ending.

 

No one really seems to ask - how safe is safe enough?  How much more safe does something have to be to be worth legislating a change?

 

Then there is the question of whether safety legislation or devices in cars actually improves safety in real terms, and the answer often seems to be no, it just changes driving behavior.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Then there is the question of whether safety legislation or devices in cars actually improves safety in real terms, and the answer often seems to be no, it just changes driving behavior.

Let me tell you a little story.

 

About 19 years ago, I was driving on the freeway on the way home, in the second lane from the left.  An impatient driver to my left suddenly pulled into my lane without looking, to get around a car in the left lane that was moving too slowly for him.  I hit the brakes and my jeep went into a skid, crossed two lanes of traffic to the right, hit the jersey barrier almost head on, and rolled at least twice.  It was fairly new at the time but was totaled.  

 

The only reason DD and I survived was because of safety legislation and angels, I am sure.  I had my seat/shoulder belt on, and DD was in her rear facing infant car seat.  People stopped and helped us out of the car, we were taken to the hospital, and released the same day.  It was over a year before I was fully recovered, but no question about it, those safety devices were hugely protective.  And thank God He had squads of angels on the case as well.

[SKL]

That's the thing, people don't always have foresight to predict the negative side of safety "improvements."

 

Many of the children forgotten in hot cars would not have been forgotten before kids were banned from the front seat thanks to airbags.  The number of kid dying and being injured in hot cars has increased exponentially since the passenger side airbag became standard equipment.  That's just one example of how a "safety improvement" has actually led to unexpected deaths and injuries.

 

The more we insist on zero tolerance for any injuries, the more we lose sight of what really is optimal safety.

 

IMO the most important thing for kid in cars is to have a driver who is 100% aware that he is exposing his child to real risks.

[Bluegoat]

Let me tell you a little story.

 

About 19 years ago, I was driving on the freeway on the way home, in the second lane from the left.  An impatient driver to my left suddenly pulled into my lane without looking, to get around a car in the left lane that was moving too slowly for him.  I hit the brakes and my jeep went into a skid, crossed two lanes of traffic to the right, hit the jersey barrier almost head on, and rolled at least twice.  It was fairly new at the time but was totaled.  

 

The only reason DD and I survived was because of safety legislation and angels, I am sure.  I had my seat/shoulder belt on, and DD was in her rear facing infant car seat.  People stopped and helped us out of the car, we were taken to the hospital, and released the same day.  It was over a year before I was fully recovered, but no question about it, those safety devices were hugely protective.  And thank God He had squads of angels on the case as well.

 

I don't think though that this really addresses the question.  Why do people feel free to drive so carelessly?  Why do we have freeways at all?  Why are driving speeds so fast?

 

Improvements to safety in many cases seem to be off-set by different driving practices - faster or more cars being pushed through, and so on.  In individual cases then, yes, you see people saved by a particular safety innovation.  And you might see over time what seem to be improvements if you are only looking at the number of people saved by the safety device.  But that isn't necessarily the whole picture. 

 

This isn't to say all safety changes are going to be fruitless, but the results aren't necessarily going to be as expected.  It seems like without some sense of how much of a change in performance is actually meaningful it would be difficult to make a judgement.