Should I keep my mouth shut or make a stink?

[MoonFaerie]

As long as you can live with the consequences of your decision, go for it. a deploying air bag will likely kill your daughter. without an airbag, her chances are better to survive a crash, but if the seatbelt doesn't fit her properly across the hips and shoulder and instead is on her neck, well, it won't be good.

I'll never understand why it is such an imposition to make sure a seatbelt fits a child properly so it can provide protection in an accident.

Right?

If I was the ex-wife, I'd definitely want to know. Safety rules can't be thrown out the window just because he doesn't see her very often.

 

[CHawthorne]

And have you done any research? If you have please do share actual factual studies that prove that a child does not need a car seat or booster seat to be safe when they are under a certain height/weight. I have yet to ever see anything to indicate it is safer to not be restrained in a booster/car seat..never and I doubt you have any proof of that either.

This has nothing to do with the cost of a seat or brand of a seat..it has to do with a properly installed child restrain that is appropriate for the child's height/weight and age.

I have been in 3 serious car accidents (all caused by the driver of the other vehicle), I have reviewed car seat and crash test data, I have spoken to the seasoned fire fighter and triage nurses who taught us car seat safety..they witnessed what nobody should ever have to witness for their child..I have no doubt in my mind having my child properly restrained will keep them safer than a seat belt..none at all and there is plenty of data to back that up.

Even if you don't believe in it (and how you couldn't is beyond me...) in many states the LAW requires that you restrain your child to a certain age/weight/height AND both vehicle manufacturers, the AAP and various other agencies also state they are safest in the back seat. They don't call the front passenger seat the "death seat" because it is the safest place to sit now do they?

From the AAP website directly:

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is not a testing or standard-setting organization, this guide sets forth the AAP recommendations based on the peer-reviewed literature available at the time of its publication, and sets forth some of the factors that parents should consider before selecting and using a car safety seat.

The AAP does not conduct its own testing. They rely on third parties who are often compensated for their opinions. I believe 100% that children should be in a proper car seat. What I disagree with is that young adults should be in booster seats until the age of 12. Especially since car seat makers such as Evenflo, contribute directly to the AAP which in turn recommends it to the general public. And not to pick on Evenflo but if they wanted to they could create one car seat that can be adjusted to be used for the child’s duration in the car. They however, have created car seats that constantly need to be updated/ repurchased as the child grows. I wonder if the AAP shared their growth charts with them?

 

[shalom]

, but if the seatbelt doesn't fit her properly across the hips and shoulder and instead is on her neck, well, it won't be good.

Not just if it catches the child on the neck. A child's pelvis is more flexible than an adult's, and their abdominal organs more exposed (as we grow, more organs end up behind bone), meaning that even if the child is sitting "properly" with a regular lap belt, they can slide down in an accident and get serious abdominal injuries.

Levitt and Dunbar, the guys who wrote Freakonomics, are the big names arguing against car seats, but they're generally ignored for two reasons. First, the studies they ran have never been published in a peer-reveiwed journal, meaning no one's been able to "check the math." But second, and far more importantly IMHO, they're basing their advice on experiments with crash-test dummies, and the crash-test dummies for children have a much more rigid pelvis, meaning they don't submarine as easily.

Crash-test dummies also didn't predict the stretching that is the reason car seats need to be rear-facing. They're good for predicting a lot of injuries, but when it comes to some common injuries dummies are just not flexible enough to accurately represent young children. I don't know about Dunbar, but Levitt is an economist, and it's a lot easier to study economic activity in the lab than it is the forces of a car wreck on a child's body. So Levitt puts too much emphasis on lab studies, while downplaying real life data, which skews his calculations.

 

[hereyago]

OP: I may have a different personality then you.
I wouldn't have even mentioned about telling the ex wife. I would have said: you know, when people get divorced the non custodial parent want to over compensate to make up for the loss the kid may feel, ie. letting them have no rules at their house as opposed to when the family was a unit, the kid had a bed time. Your DBr may be trying to over compensate or make himself look like the "fun" parent.

With that said, I'd also say something smart butt like" ok, let me know how you think it would work out when some idiot hits you and your kid who is too small for a safety belt still gets thrown around like a rag doll ,seriously injured or killed or has the air bag come at her full force seriously injured and kills

. or when someone in another car or at the drive thru(I have actually witnessed this) calls the cops because your kid should be in the back in her car seat and you are charged with endangering a child".

 

[shalom]

I believe 100% that children should be in a proper car seat. What I disagree with is that young adults should be in booster seats until the age of 12.

The child in this discussion is age 5. And the initial complaint was, in part, that the brother wouldn't put the child in the back seat, where the child's odds of surviving an accident are 30% better. My kids have to sit in the back until they're taller than I am, which generally does not happen by the time they're 12 (I'm 5'3"). Adults can make their own choices about what risks they face; so long as children are under my care, I make those decisions.

You're using a rather unique definition of "young adult" there. Are you a librarian? For most people, you go from "child" to "teen", with a young adult being someone older than 18 or 20, who hasn't yet hit middle age. In my family, a young adult is someone who can hold down a real job and take on some of the responsibilities common to adulthood (and uncommon to teens).

. or when someone in another car or at the drive thru(I have actually witnessed this) calls the cops because your kid should be in the back in her car seat and you are charged with endangering a child".

Or films it with their phone and posts the clip to YouTube. Or someone he knows sees it and tells his Ex (which I would assume is more common in small towns, but really could happen anywhere).

 

[iheartdisney]

And as far as calling the police for endangering a child…come on. I have read a few trip reports from some of the posters and I would say that I have a case of attempted murder with the poor nutritional choices made by the same safety first people. I might just send the photos to the local stations and CPS.

Best. Quote. Ever.
Recommendations are just that. Recommendations.
It is also recommended by experts that red meat be cooked to 165 degrees, but people still eat steak medium rare, and i don't think you can get lose custody for that.
It is recommended that you have at least a 4 day emergency supply, but again, I don't see anyone losing custody following hurricanes and earthquakes.
It was once recommended that 2 glasses of red wine a night were healthy for a pregnant mother. Now we know about FAS.
DDT spraying was once recommended for public health. It led to countless cases of cancer and we almost lost the bald eagle on a "recommendation"

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that the days of riding your child in your lap while you are driving are far behind us. But saying that a father should have his child taken away for having her riding (safely belted in) in the front seat of a vehicle or comparing it to playing with a loaded weapon is just ridiculous. And serious overkill.

 

[CHawthorne]

The child in this discussion is age 5. And the initial complaint was, in part, that the brother wouldn't put the child in the back seat, where the child's odds of surviving an accident are 30% better. My kids have to sit in the back until they're taller than I am, which generally does not happen by the time they're 12 (I'm 5'3"). Adults can make their own choices about what risks they face; so long as children are under my care, I make those decisions.

You're using a rather unique definition of "young adult" there. Are you a librarian? For most people, you go from "child" to "teen", with a young adult being someone older than 18 or 20, who hasn't yet hit middle age. In my family, a young adult is someone who can hold down a real job and take on some of the responsibilities common to adulthood (and uncommon to teens).



Or films it with their phone and posts the clip to YouTube. Or someone he knows sees it and tells his Ex (which I would assume is more common in small towns, but really could happen anywhere).

You know what I am changing my stance here. I agree that all children should be in a car seat until age 12. The same AAP says that the average 12 year old male is 4’11 – 5’4. And you are clearly below the height limit of an average 12 year old. So do you use an AAP approved booster seat? Because if you do not you are endangering the lives of your children and should be reported to the police and CPS.

 

[Coconut36]

From the AAP website directly:

Although the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is not a testing or standard-setting organization, this guide sets forth the AAP recommendations based on the peer-reviewed literature available at the time of its publication, and sets forth some of the factors that parents should consider before selecting and using a car safety seat.

The AAP does not conduct its own testing. They rely on third parties who are often compensated for their opinions. I believe 100% that children should be in a proper car seat. What I disagree with is that young adults should be in booster seats until the age of 12. Especially since car seat makers such as Evenflo, contribute directly to the AAP which in turn recommends it to the general public. And not to pick on Evenflo but if they wanted to they could create one car seat that can be adjusted to be used for the child’s duration in the car. They however, have created car seats that constantly need to be updated/ repurchased as the child grows. I wonder if the AAP shared their growth charts with them?

The AAP is a medical organization..I see no issue with someone providing test data to them as it makes sense one relies on experts to provide them with safety information and data.

There are many carseats that last a really really long time. Its entirely unrealistic IMO to think a seat should last from infancy until they are tall enough to be in a seat belt. There is more than 1 seat on the market that will take them from rear facing infancy through to a booster seat and that is extremely reasonable.

As for the age of a child when they move to a seat belt..I think there are a few factors there..the basic fact is that if you are too small height wise or not heavy enough weight wise the seat belt can not function properly and as such seriously compromises your safety. So it makes complete sense that a child should reach a certain height/weight requirement before using them otherwise they are not safe because the seat belt is not functioning properly and they are at greater risk. I understand that some adults barely reach those heights..my own Great Grandma was probably barely 4'10" however those are the exceptions not the rule and the rule applies to the average/majority.

Also as children age some of the bones and ligaments in their body are not fully developed yet..what the neck and spine of a 1 year old looks like vs a 6 year old is vastly different..meaning the body as they get older is better able to withstand the trauma of an accident vs the damage it would cause if they were younger.

Here is an example..cervical vertebrae for a one-year old (left), and beside it a cervical vertebrae for a 6 year old (right). You can see at 1 their vertebrae is still in pieces:

thoracic vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right)

As they get older the body is continuing to fuse and develop..in general the older they are, the more likely they are to survive the trauma..hence being 12 or 13 or older before sitting in the front seat. Also the position of the head based on height/age regarding a front air bag deploying can mean the difference between some bruises and death..the air bag can catch the head/neck in the wrong position if the child is too small and result in a broken neck or other serious injury/death.

It's not like they don't test this stuff out and don't have any idea the height/weight and body positions that are necessary to reduce or prevent serious injury and death in the event of an accident. Like I said before..there is countless data that proves the usefulness and safety from a child safety seat and also data and crash test that show the resulting trauma if someone too small is improperly belted. There is lno data I have seen showing child restraints like a car seat/booster causing similar serious injuries..on the contrary they have been proven to reduce trauma/serious injury when used properly.

 

[Coconut36]

Best. Quote. Ever.
Recommendations are just that. Recommendations.
It is also recommended by experts that red meat be cooked to 165 degrees, but people still eat steak medium rare, and i don't think you can get lose custody for that.
It is recommended that you have at least a 4 day emergency supply, but again, I don't see anyone losing custody following hurricanes and earthquakes.
It was once recommended that 2 glasses of red wine a night were healthy for a pregnant mother. Now we know about FAS.
DDT spraying was once recommended for public health. It led to countless cases of cancer and we almost lost the bald eagle on a "recommendation"

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that the days of riding your child in your lap while you are driving are far behind us. But saying that a father should have his child taken away for having her riding (safely belted in) in the front seat of a vehicle or comparing it to playing with a loaded weapon is just ridiculous. And serious overkill.

Actually no in some cases they are not just recommendations..they are LAW (eta..apparently it is a new law..so the poster that was pulled over by a CHP officer was not fined because the law goes into effect in Jan 2012). California for example indicates that children must be in a booster seat/child restraint until 8 and 57" and they must ride in the rear of the car (with the exception of a vehicle with no rear seats and in that case they must still be in a child restraint seat). That is the LAW not a recommendation. Many states have laws requiring children be a certain height/weight/age before they can be in an adult seat belt..they vary from state to state though.

 

[CHawthorne]

The AAP is a medical organization..I see no issue with someone providing test data to them as it makes sense one relies on experts to provide them with safety information and data.

There are many carseats that last a really really long time. Its entirely unrealistic IMO to think a seat should last from infancy until they are tall enough to be in a seat belt. There is more than 1 seat on the market that will take them from rear facing infancy through to a booster seat and that is extremely reasonable.

As for the age of a child when they move to a seat belt..I think there are a few factors there..the basic fact is that if you are too small height wise or not heavy enough weight wise the seat belt can not function properly and as such seriously compromises your safety. So it makes complete sense that a child should reach a certain height/weight requirement before using them otherwise they are not safe because the seat belt is not functioning properly and they are at greater risk. I understand that some adults barely reach those heights..my own Great Grandma was probably barely 4'10" however those are the exceptions not the rule and the rule applies to the average/majority.

Also as children age some of the bones and ligaments in their body are not fully developed yet..what the neck and spine of a 1 year old looks like vs a 6 year old is vastly different..meaning the body as they get older is better able to withstand the trauma of an accident vs the damage it would cause if they were younger.

Here is an example..cervical vertebrae for a one-year old (left), and beside it a cervical vertebrae for a 6 year old (right). You can see at 1 their vertebrae is still in pieces:

thoracic vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right)

As they get older the body is continuing to fuse and develop..in general the older they are, the more likely they are to survive the trauma..hence being 12 or 13 or older before sitting in the front seat. Also the position of the head based on height/age regarding a front air bag deploying can mean the difference between some bruises and death..the air bag can catch the head/neck in the wrong position if the child is too small and result in a broken neck or other serious injury/death.

It's not like they don't test this stuff out and don't have any idea the height/weight and body positions that are necessary to reduce or prevent serious injury and death in the event of an accident. Like I said before..there is countless data that proves the usefulness and safety from a child safety seat and also data and crash test that show the resulting trauma if someone too small is improperly belted. There is lno data I have seen showing child restraints like a car seat/booster causing similar serious injuries..on the contrary they have been proven to reduce trauma/serious injury when used properly.

You are really missing the point here. The “experts” you are relying on are being paid to endorse a product. No different than MJ and Nike. AAP has not tested these claims and to be honest the AAP has its own agenda to push.

While I agree that a young child should be in a car seat I simply cannot fathom putting an average 12 year old boy (remember from the AAP – 5’4) into a booster seat. In the one poster’s case the child would already be taller than the adult driving the car. We come from a tall family and by 12 my own son was already 5’7. I would have been breaking today’s law though by not putting him into a booster. A 5’7 kid in a booster would be touching the roof, but we all know that a booster is needed for 12 year olds to be safe. The law is the law though right?

 

[Coconut36]

You are really missing the point here. The “experts” you are relying on are being paid to endorse a product. No different than MJ and Nike. AAP has not tested these claims and to be honest the AAP has its own agenda to push.

While I agree that a young child should be in a car seat I simply cannot fathom putting an average 12 year old boy (remember from the AAP – 5’4) into a booster seat. In the one poster’s case the child would already be taller than the adult driving the car. We come from a tall family and by 12 my own son was already 5’7. I would have been breaking today’s law though by not putting him into a booster. A 5’7 kid in a booster would be touching the roof, but we all know that a booster is needed for 12 year olds to be safe. The law is the law though right?

I don't think I am the one missing the point. The point IMO is there is endless data from sources outside the AAP if that is your issue..experts in regards to crash testing and safety that clearly document the risks to children in a vehicle with and without child restraints. There is no data indicating a child is unsafe in the proper restraint for their age/height/weight. I have yet to see a crash test or a study showing a child was more severely injured in a child restraint seat than a child who was under 8/57" and using a seat belt. All the data points to increased safety and reduction of serious injury when the appropriate child restraint seat is used.

Where are you getting 12 years and 5'4" for a booster? The AAP recommendation is that they be at least 4'9" (so 57 inches) and between the ages of 8-12 years old before they use an adult seat belt. Meaning a 5'4" 12 year old would NOT fall into the recommendation as they would be at least or over 57" and at least or over 8 years of age. So once a child reaches both 57" AND at least 8 years of age a booster seat is no longer recommended. Same goes for state laws..in general they state 57" and a MINIMUM of 8 years of age..nowhere do they indicate that someone over 57" and over 8 years of age must remain in a booster/child restraint seat. Several however do indicate that under 12-13 years old they need to ride in the rear seats. Again..why is anyone so determined the seat known as the "death seat" is the safest place for anyone, much less a child?

It seems like you are purposely distorting the recommendations

Copy and past directly from AAP policy statement:

In a new policy published in the April 2011 issue of Pediatrics (published online March 21), the AAP advises parents to keep their toddlers in rear-facing car seats until age 2, or until they reach the maximum height and weight for their seat. It also advises that most children will need to ride in a belt-positioning booster seat until they have reached 4 feet 9 inches tall and are between 8 and 12 years of age.

Children should transition from a rear-facing seat to a forward-facing seat with a harness, until they reach the maximum weight or height for that seat. Then a booster will make sure the vehicle’s lap-and-shoulder belt fit properly. The shoulder belt should lie across the middle of the chest and shoulder, not near the neck or face. The lap belt should fit low and snug on the hips and upper thighs, not across the belly. Most children will need a booster seat until they have reached 4 feet 9 inches tall and are between 8 and 12 years old.

Children should ride in the rear of a vehicle until they are 13 years old.

The point again is proper fit of the seat belt..if the child is too small it will not fit them and thus will not protect them. Again..regardless of what the AAP says there is a ton of data and crash test data that confirms children are safer in a child restraint appropriate for their height/weight if they are not big enough to properly fit in an adult seat belt. Nowhere in the policy statement am I seeing anything that indicates a child who exceeds 57" and 8 years of age "has" to be in a booster. The policy IMO simply states the minimum height and age to safely use an adult seat belt.

 

[CHawthorne]

I don't think I am the one missing the point. The point IMO is there is endless data from sources outside the AAP if that is your issue..experts in regards to crash testing and safety that clearly document the risks to children in a vehicle with and without child restraints. There is no data indicating a child is unsafe in the proper restraint for their age/height/weight.

Where are you getting 12 years and 5'4" for a booster? The AAP recommendation is that they be at least 4'9" (so 57 inches) and between the ages of 8-12 years old before they use an adult seat belt. Meaning a 5'4" 12 year old would NOT fall into the recommendation as they would be at least or over 57" and at least or over 8 years of age. So once a child reaches both 57" AND at least 8 years of age a booster seat is no longer recommended.

It seems like you are purposely distorting the recommendations

Copy and past directly from AAP policy statement:




The point again is proper fit of the seat belt..if the child is too small it will not fit them and thus will not protect them. Again..regardless of what the AAP says there is a ton of data and crash test data that confirms children are safer in a child restraint appropriate for their height/weight if they are not big enough to properly fit in an adult seat belt. Nowhere in the policy statement am I seeing anything that indicates a child who exceeds 57" and 8 years of age "has" to be in a booster. The policy IMO simply states the minimum height and age to safely use an adult seat belt.

Sorry but you are wrong. The AAP is not the law. The law clearly says 12. So even though the child's head hits the roof they should be in a booster. And if I see any child below the age of 12 NOT in a booster I will be calling the police and CPS.

 

[Coconut36]

Sorry but you are wrong. The AAP is not the law. The law clearly says 12. So even though the child's head hits the roof they should be in a booster. And if I see any child below the age of 12 NOT in a booster I will be calling the police and CPS.

What law clearly states a 12 year old has to be in a booster if they are 57" or more?

 

[scrapquitler]

Some people never get over 57 inches. I've never heard of that number before.

I think a previous poster was confused. She kept mentioning 5 foot 7 inches. The height reccomended to be out of a booster seat is FOUR FEET NINE INCHES - 57" not 5'7".

And for all the small adults out there, the seat belts and air bags are actually designed to optimally work for a 50th percentile male adult. So even the small female is endangered.

From Edmunds.com

Back in 1978, when NHTSA first began its crash test program, automobiles were very different. Airbags, and even three-point seatbelts, weren't commonly found in cars. Dr. Rolf Eppinger, chief, National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center at NHTSA, explains, "Before the agency [NHTSA] mandated airbags and seatbelts, the use of the 50th-percentile male dummy was considered sufficient to provide an evaluation of the performance of safety belts for the entire driving population, even if each possible size wasn't tested." This dummy, called the Hybrid III, is still in use by both NHTSA and the IIHS today. An average-sized adult male, the Hybrid III dummy weighs in at 170 pounds and is 5 feet 9 inches tall.

As airbags were developed, it became obvious that the effects of these safety systems, what Eppinger calls "safety performance," varied widely depending on the height and weight of the occupant, especially if that occupant was in the driver seat. "Smaller females, and small males, too, tend to sit closer to the steering wheel and thus have a greater chance of interacting with and being harmed by the rapidly deploying, unfolding airbag," says Eppinger.

Boy Meets Girl

As researchers began to realize the issues that people of differing sizes would face, they started to look at developing dummies that would represent the smallest and largest adults. In the mid-1980s, researchers developed a dummy representing a 95th-percentile male, who was larger than 95 percent of the adult male population, and a 5th-percentile female dummy, who was smaller than 95 percent of the adult female population. Both of these dummies are versions of the Hybrid III dummy that have been scaled up or down. The 95th-percentile male is 6 feet 2 inches tall and weighs 223 pounds, while the 5th-percentile female is 5 feet tall and weighs 110 pounds.

While the 5th-percentile female Hybrid III dummy was put to work immediately in frontal crash testing within the automotive industry, she was not used for U.S. safety regulations until the year 2000. There, she is used by NHTSA to "evaluate the out-of-position performance of inflating airbags as well as the performance of a normally seated female driver and passenger at crash speeds of 20, 25 and 35 miles per hour," says Eppinger.

 

[CHawthorne]

What law clearly states a 12 year old has to be in a booster if they are 57" or more?

The law of C.Hawthorne. And I am a safety expert. I want the car pulled over and the child measured to ensure they reach the AAP's recommendation. So if a child looks under 12 to me a call is going to be placed to the police and CPS.

 

[iheartdisney]

It seems like you are purposely distorting the recommendations

And you are not? The recommendations, by your own account, are "safer." Not a guarantee. And also, not an automatic death sentence. And for someone to compare a child old enough to ride a school bus riding in a front seat to handing them a loaded weapon is just as inflammatory.
People pick their own causes to obsess over. Apparently we found yours. Because in the 17 years I have been a licensed driver, in the 9 years i have been a parent and all the available classes that come with that privilege- I have never, ever heard the term "death seat" unless I was discussing a capitol offence, and then the proper term is "death chair."
Now, if you will excuse me I have to go pick my DD up from school. Time to sign her death warrant, I guess!

 

[CHawthorne]

Actually I just read the laws for the tri-state area. With the ever increasing obesity problem we have most children will reach 80 pounds by the age of 5. So there really is no issue. Move along.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Best. Quote. Ever.
Recommendations are just that. Recommendations.
It is also recommended by experts that red meat be cooked to 165 degrees, but people still eat steak medium rare, and i don't think you can get lose custody for that.
It is recommended that you have at least a 4 day emergency supply, but again, I don't see anyone losing custody following hurricanes and earthquakes.
It was once recommended that 2 glasses of red wine a night were healthy for a pregnant mother. Now we know about FAS.
DDT spraying was once recommended for public health. It led to countless cases of cancer and we almost lost the bald eagle on a "recommendation"

Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe that the days of riding your child in your lap while you are driving are far behind us. But saying that a father should have his child taken away for having her riding (safely belted in) in the front seat of a vehicle or comparing it to playing with a loaded weapon is just ridiculous. And serious overkill.

I will have to go with worst quote ever and your comparisons are ridiculous when we are considering what the law REQUIRES.

There is no law requiring pregnant women to abstain from alcohol.

There is no law establishing how one is legally obligated to prepare a hurricane except for modern day building codes for new homes and remodels.

There is no law requiring minimum cooking temperatures for red meat.

There are laws about providing a minor access to a gun and making it illegal.

It isn't overkill at all.

And a 5 year old in the front seat without a lap belt is not "safely belted in".

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Sorry but you are wrong. The AAP is not the law. The law clearly says 12. So even though the child's head hits the roof they should be in a booster. And if I see any child below the age of 12 NOT in a booster I will be calling the police and CPS.

Citation?

The only laws I have seen are 8 and 4'9".

 

[Coconut36]

The law of C.Hawthorne. And I am a safety expert. I want the car pulled over and the child measured to ensure they reach the AAP's recommendation. So if a child looks under 12 to me a call is going to be placed to the police and CPS.

Ummm...yeah you are purposely being difficult and distorting things here as I suspected.

Again..there are actual laws in all but 3 states I think regarding children remaining in a booster seat until a certain age/height and since the situation posted by the OP is a situation where it is NOT both parents making this choice it is absolutely the right of the child's mother to know what is going on and as I posted way way back if the OP brother is also in NJ they are indeed breaking the LAW..not the recommendations but the actual law of their state as it indicates that a child must be 8 years and 80lbs before they can be out of a booster seat and it states they must ride in the rear if there is a rear seat.