New car seat guidelines from the AAp

[justhat]

Ack! I hope you're kidding! A person wearing a lap belt alone is classed as "unrestrained."

If anyone still has cars with lap belts only, please take them to be retrofitted. NO ONE should ride with a lap belt only!

Not unless you think being a paraplegic would be fun...

Oh, I completely agree with you about lap belts being completely unsafe. Just saying that the guideline for booster use doesn't address children not being permitting to ride in a car with only lap belts.

 

[jodifla]

This car is from the mid-90s, hardly THAT old. So there are plenty of people out there riding around with lap belts only.

 

[Bren's Mom]

So it would seem to me that when calculating the odds of the type of crash and comparing it against the cost of continually injuring your child by cramping their legs, rear facing your preschooler may not be the best choice.

First, and most important, there is ZERO evidence that using a rear-facing seat appropriate for the child's age/weight injures a child at all, let alone the 'continually' you post. ZERO evidence of this.

The study you quoted is NOT the statistics for ALL crashes, they looked at only certain years and only crashes involving children. What I was taught is what I posted, most crashes are frontal/frontal offset, second most side impact, third is rear-end...in terms of number/severity.

The Bull study that you refer to, DOES indicate that rear-facing is statistically safer in ALL types of crashes for children up to age 2. (Over age 2 was not studies, there were not enough children rear-facing beyond two for the time period studies to obtain any meaningful statistics.)

 

[Bren's Mom]

And what about those of us with OLDER CARS? My car seats 8, but only has 4 shoulder belts, and two of those are in the front seat. So my car, perfect for car pooling, would be made pretty useless by these guidelines.

The guidelines are just that, guidelines. They're letting you know what the research bears out about what is safEST. It is always understood that, once meeting any state or federal minimum, the parents get to make the decisions for their particular circumstance.

You car is still appropriate for car pooling IF the parents of the other children you transport approve their child being in a lap only belt. That isn't changed AT ALL by these findings. Most 12 years olds in most states have already exceeded the legal minimum, so it would be their parents decision. I wouldn't choose to allow my child to car pool in your vehicle if you had only a lap belt to offer my son, but other parents would. That's their prerogative.

 

[rchristiansen]

First, and most important, there is ZERO evidence that using a rear-facing seat appropriate for the child's age/weight injures a child at all, let alone the 'continually' you post. ZERO evidence of this.

Right, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that it doesn't. It hasn't been studied. And that's the point I have made my previous post; there needs to be more research to determine if it has caused injury. Just on this thread alone a PP has said it did injure their child, so there is some anecdotal evidence - which may suggest further research needs to be done. Also, just at face value, it doesn't seem like it would be a good thing to have children sit that way.


Furthermore, one of the questions I am going to bring up in my paper are:

Why the child was rear facing? Perhaps they were small enough to be rear facing and this study is biased toward that. The study did not control for height when evaluating injury score. Perhaps the findings would be different if the study if height was controlled for when understanding the injury outcome. Also vice versa - Forward facing results controlling for height.

There are so many limitations and flaws that I don't think decisions should be based on this study alone. I think, like I said, more research should done.

The Bull study that you refer to, DOES indicate that rear-facing is statistically safer in ALL types of crashes for children up to age 2.

Right, but that is meaningless because then is also further states that when controlled for frontal crashes, rear facing and forward facing are the same.



Everyone loves to listen to the media hype and internet discussions, share youtube videos, post on their facebook walls all sorts of warnings, etc. etc, The first thing I said, was these news reports only serve to freak everyone out. The main purpose of the statistics course I'm in is to teach us that nearly all of the news reports and internet postings out there are total baloney. It was a real eye opener. In fact, one thing we learn is that a lot of colleges actually teach statistics wrong - many journal articles report statistics wrong. That's the goal: Discern the baloney from the hype. I smell baloney & hype right now, so I'm going to investigate it further.

 

[ccgirl]

Just wanted to point out that the guidelines that were just released were just that - guidelines. They not not a LAW. Each state has varying child restraint laws. As for car pooling, I have an extra booster seat in my car for when I carpool to school. However, my car also has adjustable seatbelts so not all children need them. I look to see how the seatbelt fits on them before having them utilize a booster.

 

[justhat]

They don't serve just to freak people out. They serve to save more children from serious injury in crashes.

The poster whose child was injured from RF, I honestly think the physicians were wrong. My husband is one and gosh knows he's wrong often!! Unless the child were in the car several hours a day without interruption, which seems highly unlikely, I can't see how being RF would cause any damage. And even hours at a time, my kids did long drives RF and we never heard one complaint, and they were 2yo and not short! And my oldest has very long legs, so you'd think the problem would occur with more than 1 kid.

FTR, I am NOT saying that the poster made anything up, is wrong, lying, etc. I am just saying that I think the drs might have missed some other cause for the child's pain.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

They don't serve just to freak people out. They serve to save more children from serious injury in crashes.

The poster whose child was injured from RF, I honestly think the physicians were wrong. My husband is one and gosh knows he's wrong often!! Unless the child were in the car several hours a day without interruption, which seems highly unlikely, I can't see how being RF would cause any damage. And even hours at a time, my kids did long drives RF and we never heard one complaint, and they were 2yo and not short! And my oldest has very long legs, so you'd think the problem would occur with more than 1 kid.

FTR, I am NOT saying that the poster made anything up, is wrong, lying, etc. I am just saying that I think the drs might have missed some other cause for the child's pain.

But why? Why is it not plausible that they child could have simply been very uncomfortable? Not every kid is bendy. Heck not every person is bendy. Kids do get uncomfortable, car sick, etc. That should not be discounted. I still think that some of these carseats are over the top. Unless a child has a disability I cannot imagine needing a carseat that goes to 125lbs. I weighed less than that in college!

 

[justhat]

But why? Why is it not plausible that they child could have simply been very uncomfortable? Not every kid is bendy. Heck not every person is bendy. Kids do get uncomfortable, car sick, etc. That should not be discounted. I still think that some of these carseats are over the top. Unless a child has a disability I cannot imagine needing a carseat that goes to 125lbs. I weighed less than that in college!

I agree with you, the child could have been uncomfortable. But let's say the kid was in the car 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes in the afternoon (barring any extra errands/activities, just an average). In that amount of time, while the child might be uncomfortable, I don't think it was causing damage. It could, but then I would think it would do that to multiple other kids as well. And if that were the case, there would likely be reports of it and that would be factored into the studies.

So if it is causing a problem with some kids, I would think extremely few to the point that it isn't a significant amount to even factor into the equation.

 

[luvmy3]

Ack! I hope you're kidding! A person wearing a lap belt alone is classed as "unrestrained."

If anyone still has cars with lap belts only, please take them to be retrofitted. NO ONE should ride with a lap belt only!

Not unless you think being a paraplegic would be fun...

This car is from the mid-90s, hardly THAT old. So there are plenty of people out there riding around with lap belts only.

I have a 2003 vehicle with a lapbelt only seat in the thrid row. I don't let any children sit in it. Adults can if they want.

I agree with you, the child could have been uncomfortable. But let's say the kid was in the car 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes in the afternoon (barring any extra errands/activities, just an average). In that amount of time, while the child might be uncomfortable, I don't think it was causing damage. It could, but then I would think it would do that to multiple other kids as well. And if that were the case, there would likely be reports of it and that would be factored into the studies.

So if it is causing a problem with some kids, I would think extremely few to the point that it isn't a significant amount to even factor into the equation.

So, there can be room for error in a doctor's diagnosis because of what you think the statistics are?

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I agree with you, the child could have been uncomfortable. But let's say the kid was in the car 30 minutes in the morning, 30 minutes in the afternoon (barring any extra errands/activities, just an average). In that amount of time, while the child might be uncomfortable, I don't think it was causing damage. It could, but then I would think it would do that to multiple other kids as well. And if that were the case, there would likely be reports of it and that would be factored into the studies.

So if it is causing a problem with some kids, I would think extremely few to the point that it isn't a significant amount to even factor into the equation.

Do we have any information on latent effects? Perhaps 10 years down the road, problems with knee stiffness, underdeveloped cartilage? These are the types of things I'd like to know. I'm not the most flexible person in the world, and, because of playing the position of Catcher in baseball from age 5 until 18, my knees were shot by the time I reached my 20's. Are there any studies that look at long term effects?

 

[luvmy3]

I wonder what this will do travel? We go on alot of trips throughout the year, sometimes in the car as long as 6 hours. I can picture it now.

"are we there yet?"
"no, we haven't even gotten on the highway"
"are we getting closer?"
"no honey, we havent even left our State"
"mom, when are we going to get there"
"Not for another 5 hours, stop bugging me"
"but mom, please, I can't feel my legs!!"

 

[laurie31]

I've checked it out...retrofitting a car like mine isn't really feasible.

Bummer.

DH's car is 12 years old, and we think of it as ancient, but I know there are older things on the road. His parents have a car where some of the seats have only a lapbelt, but they don't use those seats so they haven't bothered trying to have it retrofitted.

For anyone still using lapbelts only, just be aware that if your insurance has a higher deductible for being unrestrained, that wearing a lapbelt only will cause you to pay it. People are always taken off guard by that.

But why? Why is it not plausible that they child could have simply been very uncomfortable? Not every kid is bendy. Heck not every person is bendy. Kids do get uncomfortable, car sick, etc. That should not be discounted. I still think that some of these carseats are over the top. Unless a child has a disability I cannot imagine needing a carseat that goes to 125lbs. I weighed less than that in college!

Sadly, there are lots of kids of car seat age who are that size out there now.

 

[justhat]

Sadly, there are lots of kids of car seat age who are that size out there now.

Very true. I know my daughter's harnesses to 85lbs, and while she'd never make it that high, there are kids in her class who could.




Long term effects I am sure have not been studied yet as it hasn't been that long that people have done extended RF. However, when kids sit FF their legs dangle unsupported, therefore bearing weight on the knees. I would imagine that would have the same effect as sitting cross-legged RF, or with your knees bend RF, or legs draped over the carseat RF.



Regarding the dr error, yes, I do think that is more likely than any other explanation because there haven't been any other documented reports of such injuries. Even if it were 1:100,000, surely there would be a report on this. And again, unless the child spent hours in that position, it likely wouldn't cause injuries.

 

[rchristiansen]

Are there any studies that look at long term effects?

In my free time I've been trying to search Google Scholar for those studies. But I haven't found any yet.


I'll check Web of Science next.....

[Insert Jeopardy music here, while I search] (quick and dirty search - I have other things to do)


I found one study that talked about leg injuries during crashes for forward facing, but that was it. I really think there could be a dissertation topic here. Unfortunately, that's not my field. Phooey --- Unless, I want to start all over.

 

[rchristiansen]

Long term effects I am sure have not been studied yet as it hasn't been that long that people have done extended RF. However, when kids sit FF their legs dangle unsupported, therefore bearing weight on the knees. I would imagine that would have the same effect as sitting cross-legged RF, or with your knees bend RF, or legs draped over the carseat RF.



Regarding the dr error, yes, I do think that is more likely than any other explanation because there haven't been any other documented reports of such injuries. Even if it were 1:100,000, surely there would be a report on this. And again, unless the child spent hours in that position, it likely wouldn't cause injuries.

Medical reports are not public information. This information is protected by HIPAA laws unless the individual gives permission to the researcher to publicize it. And like we have been discussing, it seems there hasn't been any studies on it.

 

[ccgirl]

Very true. I know my daughter's harnesses to 85lbs, and while she'd never make it that high, there are kids in her class who could.




Long term effects I am sure have not been studied yet as it hasn't been that long that people have done extended RF. However, when kids sit FF their legs dangle unsupported, therefore bearing weight on the knees. I would imagine that would have the same effect as sitting cross-legged RF, or with your knees bend RF, or legs draped over the carseat RF.



Regarding the dr error, yes, I do think that is more likely than any other explanation because there haven't been any other documented reports of such injuries. Even if it were 1:100,000, surely there would be a report on this. And again, unless the child spent hours in that position, it likely wouldn't cause injuries.

When a child is sitting FF it is not their knees that bear their weight because they are sitting down. I have seen children come into my hospital with broken legs due to being in a car accident while rear facing. They appeared tall and I remember being surprised they were still rear facing. I do not know the specifics of the accident and that's why I am interested in seeing more research. Children with their legs constantly dangling over the sides of the carseats could also lead to hip issues. So, no, I do not feel there was doctor error in the case the PP mentioned. BTW, there haven't been any documented reports of people getting radiation from the scanners yet people still won't go through those due to too much radiation.

 

[justhat]

Medical reports are not public information. This information is protected by HIPAA laws unless the individual gives permission to the researcher to publicize it. And like we have been discussing, it seems there hasn't been any studies on it.

My husband is a physician and I work for a health insurance company, so I am quite familiar with HIPAA. However, my point is that if my child was suffering injuries due to RF in the carseat, I know my pediatrician would make a claim for that. They don't need to use my name to do that. My pediatrician would not want to see other kids harmed from RF so they'd do what they could to prevent those types of injuries. And like I said, I have not seen any such reports.

 

[justhat]

When a child is sitting FF it is not their knees that bear their weight because they are sitting down. I have seen children come into my hospital with broken legs due to being in a car accident while rear facing. They appeared tall and I remember being surprised they were still rear facing. I do not know the specifics of the accident and that's why I am interested in seeing more research. Children with their legs constantly dangling over the sides of the carseats could also lead to hip issues. So, no, I do not feel there was doctor error in the case the PP mentioned. BTW, there haven't been any documented reports of people getting radiation from the scanners yet people still won't go through those due to too much radiation.

Yes, they are sitting, but their legs are unsupported, dangling from the knee. So the weight is hanging on that joint.

It is interesting that you have seen kids with broken legs from RF carseats, as I haven't read any cases of that before (and I looked with my oldest, as people told me she'd break her legs). My husband also looked in several medical journals and inquired at the hospital he worked at and they never had such a case. It's a shame your hospital isn't reporting these cases to AAP/NHSTA so they'd be better informed.

 

[rchristiansen]

My husband also looked in several medical journals and inquired at the hospital he worked at and they never had such a case....

BINGO! I think you just proved the point we are trying to make. Research needs to be done because there aren't any reports on it. You can't prove a null hypothesis.