Child Seat Testing: Your Tax Dollars At Work! (really!!!)
When it comes to product testing you can't take just anyone's word on it. The potential for questionable, if not downright incorrect, results are plentiful. Another way to look at it: There are plenty of ways to get testing "wrong" but very few ways to get it "right." That goes for testing cars, computers and everything in-between, including child seats. Need an example of someone getting it wrong? Well, I don't want to name names (cough-Cosumer Reports-cough), but you all may remember last year's child seat testing debacle.
Thankfully there are several reliable sources of information on child safety as it relates to automobiles, including NHTSA. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's web site has been chok full of great information, on a variety of topics, for years. But NHTSA recently added an entire section on child seat "ease of use." Why is this a big deal? Because while meeting the legal requirements for "safety" is something every seat is expected to do, there has never been a ratings system for how easy (or hard) these seats are to install and use.
As with seat belts for adults, child safety seats are often the difference between life and death in a vehicle collision. And, like seats belts, child seats have to be properly utilized or their effectiveness dwindles. But unlike seat belts, the variety in design and function of child safety seats leaves plenty of room for user error. That NHTSA both recognized and addressed this issue (with a very effective rating and explanation system, BTW) is proof that, sometimes, your tax dollars really are at work.
If you're looking for a child safety seat, or already own one and hate using it, this is a great information source.
Posted by Karl May 1, 2008 6:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Safety Systems
guy1974
- May 1, 2008 6:03 am
(#1 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
Tax dollars are usually spent on stuff we are citizens want or require. So I do see the mock suprise that the Government can and does spend on things people want/need. Of course there will be examples where money is not spent on something you think is needed but that is a pretty small % of the total spend.
Want to argue against roads, defence, police, fire, education etc.
|
|
 | |
1487
- May 1, 2008 6:04 am
(#2 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
This is a little bit of a let down after the exciting "How much is too much for gas" post earlier in the week. I guess they all cant be as stimulating or controversial as that one though.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- May 1, 2008 6:17 am
(#3 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
I would argue that this is still a waste of money. Why the need for testing?
It would be simpler to creat a standard method for mounting that all manufactures use. Seat belt latches are pretty standard. Dont have to figure out how to use a seat belt every time I get in a different car.
Could be a standard mounting base that could be used by all car safety seat manufactures, and if its standard, they could talk to car manufactures to add standard features. to help them in future revisons.
|
|
| |
bepperb
- May 1, 2008 6:45 am
(#4 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
Opfreak,
The Latch system is standard across all cars. That attaches the base to the car, or for bigger kids the seat to the car, and is on anything I've seen post 2000. Very easy to use. The problem isn't that, it the interface between the seat and the kid, and the seat and the base, where people make mistakes.
Also, we have one seat where the attachment to the latch anchors is a quick release (like a seatbelt), and another where it's more or less a "hooK' which is much harder to use. We don't care, but if you moved it everyday, I guess that would be a problem.
For the gas price blog, you've got to love it. You can bash the Corvette, an American icon, and get 25 responses. One mention of gas prices gets 150 (and counting)!
|
|
| |
|
|
I've messed with niece's seats in my BMWs and even Mini over the years. Doesn't seem complicated at this point. Latch is easy and intuitive to use. Get the base in place correctly - for an infant seat - and that's that as the carrier locks in without fuss. The rest flows from there.
Looked over the NHTSA site a few weeks ago - our first kid arrives in 6 months. I've read two baby books, gone through NHTSA site and I've come to one big conclusion: Americans in the late 21st century put far too much effort into the whole baby thing. No matter the seat, as long as it's anchored and it locks the kid in, it's 1 million percent more than most of us had as kids - our mothers held us or put us on the floor in the back of the car. If you're reading this, you survived. At this point, put the kid in the middle position, get it firmly in place in their super-duper child seat and let it be.
|
|
| |
|
|
blueguydotcom,
Agreed. So much of this stuff is overkill--I survived being an infant in the mid-70s. And I love how they now market these things as 'Travel Systems'.
Well, my wife and I have the Chico Keyfit30 'Travel System' and like it, though, even in my Ridgeline, I can't lean back like an OG with that big monstrosity behind me. At 19lbs at 4 months (boobie-fed is the way to go), I can't wait to upgrade my son to a Recaro. Then we'll both be stylin', yo. True dat.
Peace.
Oh, I didn't get in on the last couple threads, so...Ron Paul in an Elise in 2008!
|
|
| |
|
|
Oy, the travel systems. Egad, everybody keeps pushing these giant devices on us. "Get this 25 lbs stroller!"
|
|
| |
|
|
Yeah, yesterday was fun!!!!!!! Karl, were some of the comments on this week's Talk Back Tuesday deleted?
I haven't had to think about baby seats yet, so I can't comment much. But I can't help agreeing with blueguy and 02speedtriple about modern seats being an overkill!
|
|
| |
estreka
- May 1, 2008 9:59 am
(#9 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
subarctic north - Great Falls, MT |
|
|
I'm surprised the market doesn't take care of this (though CR proves me quite wrong). Well, if the government is going to spend my money, I'm glad it's actally helpful. BUT, don't think the government isn't as fallible as CR.
|
|
| |
|
|
Speedtriple and I might have survived being an infant in the 70’s, but more than one infant didn’t. I think our government over steps it’s bound often, but when it comes child safety in cars I think it’s at least commendable what there trying to do. I disagree with the new federal fuel mileage rules, but laws pertaining to crash testing, stability control, tire pressure sensors, or other safety concerns are definitely needed.
I feel for parents that have to take their infants onto the highway even with the safety enhancements that have been made. We drive like madman on the highway, and I’m just as bad as the next guy. I couldn’t imagine what it would be like to get side swiped at 70 mph with an infant on board.
I thought we were just getting warmed up yesterday......They were well on their way to 200 posts.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Agree Chevy.
Also, tomorrow's post will probably be a little more "exciting" in terms of topic and statement... Stay tuned. :)
|
|
| |
|
|
chevy598, first off, you're absolutely right. I was being a bit sarcastic, but a little truthful at the same time. Maybe I could hijack this thread and run it up to a 200 post re: nanny state debate, but I'll leave that to the usual suspects.
I guess the mech engineering background I have helps me understand how forces will affect a moving object, etc. And at the same time, I have mad skillz for using/installing new products without reading manuals. So, I trust my review of a product more than some agency but understand we gotta take care of those that are incapable of caring for themselves. I just wish we wouldn't let the incapables sue and win for their snafus.
|
|
| |
|
|
02, amen. The Ford Exploder thing...come on, these people weren't keeping their tires inflated. TPM is the solution? Do we need automatic off-gas stoves too, in case these chuckleheads forget to turn off the stovetop? Personal responsibility...unless a corporation is nearby with big pockets.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Don't forget, TPM only kicks on a warning sign if the tire is at least 25% down from spec because the OEs didn't want them going off constantly and annoying drivers.
So if those Exploders' tires had been 24% underinflated TPM would have done nothing, but the tires still would have blown (especially in all those heavily loaded, hot climate states where the bulk of those crashes occured).
Normally I'm a PR (personal responsibility) man over Mother-Government-Save-Me-From-Myself thinking, but with kids you have young people who can't help who they are born to. You get smart, responsible parents you're okay. You get dopes and you can really suffer through no fault of your own -- even if you have the potential to grow up (assuming you maek it that far...) and show great personal responsibility yourself.
Tough call...
|
|
| |
|
|
So if those Exploders' tires had been 24% underinflated TPM would have done nothing, but the tires still would have blown (especially in all those heavily loaded, hot climate states where the bulk of those crashes occured).
And the users would be totally at fault in those situations. Good grief, you have to be supremely negligent to let your tires get that underinflated. You're on flexible rubber traveling at 80 mph! Took some time but even my non-technical wife now checks her tires every two weeks. Like checking oil and watching your gauges, this is just a simple, responsible part of car ownership.
but with kids you have young people who can't help who they are born to. You get smart, responsible parents you're okay. You get dopes and you can really suffer through no fault of your own -- even if you have the potential to grow up (assuming you maek it that far...) and show great personal responsibility yourself.
These are breaks of life. Outside of the US, kids are just part of the equation. I'm not sure what happened in the 90s to turn kids from just a part of a family into this precious commodity that must be fed perfectly in-utero to 18, get special attention, told its special, etc. ?
I'm not a Carlin fan but I gotta say i agree with him here:
Google "george carlin kids youtube" and click the first link - NWS, foul language
|
|
| |
aspade
- May 2, 2008 10:09 am
(#16 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
"You get smart, responsible parents you're okay. You get dopes and you can really suffer through no fault of your own"
So the usual response is to tax and spend my money to create great mazes of hoops for all parents to jump through, which are an expensive, time wasting insult to the responsible set and are largely ignored / failed by the bad parent set you were trying to correct in the first place. So they then take even more of my tax money to hire social workers and personal car seat testers and so on to go drag the latter group through the maze they built.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Pretty much -- yup, that's the system.
Did I hear someone out there just mention "Hell" and "good intentions?"
|
|
| |
opfreak
- May 6, 2008 5:07 am
(#18 Total: 18)
|
|
|
|
^the paving trucks now run 24/7.
Whats the other saying. Making something idiot proof, and i'll find you a bigger idiot?
I worked with an egnineer once who had a brilliant idea. After going through all the stupid labels/warnings we have to put on stuff. He wanted to just simplify it all.
a catch all sticker "Dont be stupid."
We cant controller what kid gets what parent. What about the kids born in some 3rd world nation? are we supposd to 'save' them as well (well, in alot of cases we are trying, but still)
|
|
|
|
