Children riding in front seat of car!

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 7:40 am

only1 wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Inspired wrote:

You are not being overprotective. It is illegal and unsafe to do what is being done. I would also advise you not to allow "double buckling". Amother, I would pull the kids out of that carpool and drive them yourself.
Granola- I am with you totally.

No, a child sitting in the front who is big enough without a booster (which is also not the law in most states at a certain age) and does not have an airbag is not illegal!!! Safety wise, most minivans have the same seatbelt in side seats, and no one is concerned about that safety belt not fitting properly. Confused

I think if you know there are 6 kids in a car pool, it's safe to assume, most people (especially with minvans) will need to put one child in the front, and I don't think it's that unsafe for an older child to sit there because of the conditions I mentioned above. It's definitely a lot safer than double buckling.

Most auto collisions are front collisions- for that reason alone, the front seats are the least safe and children should not sit there. No IF or BUTS or WHYS about it.

I said that in an earlier post; it's the least safe seat for children and adults...but no adult doesn't sit there.
I think once a child is big enough to physically be restrained well in it plus there are no airbags, if there are no other seats, it's not that terrible to sit them there (I'm assuming this is a short ride...not a whole trip) and a much better option than double buckling.
Perhaps one idea is that the biggest child sits there, and as soon as the first kid is let out, the child moves to the back?

mimsy7420

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 7:43 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

only1 wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Inspired wrote:

Most auto collisions are front collisions- for that reason alone, the front seats are the least safe and children should not sit there. No IF or BUTS or WHYS about it.

What does a short ride have to do with anything? If it's not safe - it's not safe.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 8:01 am

only1 wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

only1 wrote:

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Inspired wrote:

Most auto collisions are front collisions- for that reason alone, the front seats are the least safe and children should not sit there. No IF or BUTS or WHYS about it.

What does a short ride have to do with anything? If it's not safe - it's not safe.

Forget it. No one is listening to a thing I said.
My point is that adults sit in that seat all the time. It's not that it's not safe. It's just not the safest.
You can't expect everyone to get full-sized vans because one kid who is big enough would sit in the front. My point is that if it's a 10 minute ride, the statistics of gettign into a collision are much less than in a 5 hour drive, and it's not that the front seat is not safe. With the proper restraints, and disuse of improper airbags at the child's age, the child is pretty much very safe. Ok, the back is safer, and the child can move to the back as soon as a seat opens up. I am not disagreeing with that.

avigayil

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 9:06 am

I have to disagree with HaShem Yaazor.
It is precisely because these are 10 minute trips that it is so dangerously.
There are more 10 minute trips going on each day than 5 hour ones.
When families do this each day, they are taking a chance again.
Each day, there are different drivers on the road, different traffic patterns, and different road work.
All of these factors mean those daily trips back and forth include much danger.

Have the right tools to do a safe carpool or don't join the carpool.
Exploding anger

amother

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 9:42 am

original amother here..
Thanks so much for everyone's input! My dh and I have been discussing what to do. The mother who drove today came with a huge van and had her daughter sitting in the front! shock

I don't get it! I believe that children should not ride in the front if they are under 12 (not sure if this is a law or a recommendation). All families involved in the carpool have many children, so I'm trying to figure out why they all don't have proper seating in the 1st place! We have an 6 seats in the back (one extra than most minivans), so I know that when it is our turn we will have enough room. I think our best solution is to remove ourselves from the carpool that way everyone is safe! Although I will still need to speak to the camp leader b/c many of these parents could end up driving on camp trips!

granolamom

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 9:42 am

Quote:

I think once a child is big enough to physically be restrained well in it plus there are no airbags, if there are no other seats, it's not that terrible to sit them there (I'm assuming this is a short ride...not a whole trip) and a much better option than double buckling.
Perhaps one idea is that the biggest child sits there, and as soon as the first kid is let out, the child moves to the back?

I'd say if someone is putting a child in the front seat, she should put her own child there.

and regarding large carpools, I can fit six children safely in my car. If other mothers agree to a 6 child carpool, I assume they can too.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 10:34 am

avigayil wrote:

While I do know that most accidents occur closer to home, still the risk is really not so great. While I don't condone this as a lchatchila, as a bdi eved, I don't think it's such a problem.

It's like SIDS. Most babies don't die of SIDS. More formula-fed babies are at risk than breast-fed babies. But the chances are the formula fed baby will be fine, and so the mother can choose to feed her baby formula if she thinks it's the best thing for her and her baby without really being concerned about SIDS. I'm not saying it's the safest, but it's not that unsafe either. And it's definitely better than double buckling.

From nsc.org:
Q: I have three children and my back seat only seats two. I transport all three kids to school and other activities. I've heard that children belong in the rear seat. What can I do?

A: You're right. The safest place is the rear seat. However, there are times when placing all children in the rear isn't possible (as in your case where there aren't enough belts for all three children). If you must seat a child in the front seat, usually the oldest/largest child would be the most appropriate. If your child is the proper size, make sure that the lap and shoulder belts are properly fastened and move the vehicle seat back as far as possible away from the dashboard.

My point is NOT that I think it's safe. I never ever said that and I think people are not listening right. My point is that it has the same safety risk as for an adult when the child is able to be out of a booster seat and if someone needs to sit in that seat, the biggest child should, with no airbag, and as far away from the dashboard as possible to have less risk of smashing their head.

mimsy7420

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 10:45 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

avigayil wrote:

While I do know that most accidents occur closer to home, still the risk is really not so great. While I don't condone this as a lchatchila, as a bdi eved, I don't think it's such a problem.

is this serious???
there is no lchatchila and bidieved when it comes to childrens safety.
[/quote]

hisorerus

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 1:19 pm

Do you take an epidural (to pick on another controversial topic)? Do you realize you are taking serious, albeit minor risks to your LIFE?

Do you eat commercial, not organic produce? Do you realize that there are possibly, if not probably TOXIC materials absorbed into your fruits and vegetables?

There's common sense in safety, and then there's obsession. Triple buckling is just plain unsafe. Putting a child in the front seat when your car is not large enough otherwise, while following the above precautions, is normal and relatively safe. (Driving is VERY unsafe. Most kids die in car accidents. Consider keeping them at home in a bubble.)

carrot

Wed, Jul 05 2006, 1:38 pm

Thank you Hisorerus!

I once read a great article. It would be interesting if I could remember all the details but basically it went through a bunch of different possibilities of how many lives would be saved if the law would be changed this way or that. For example, if it was illegal to drive higher than 20 miles an hour, xxx fewer people would die each year. And don't we all say that even ONE life has infinite worth?

And yet... we have all driven on roads where the legal speed limit was much, much higher than 20 mph?

The point was that whether we acknowledge it or not we are always accepting a certain amount of risk in order to have a gain somewhere else - whether it's comfort, convenience, fun, money, etc. So on some level it is always the benefit of the majority at the expense of the minority who actually do get injured, die, etc. To argue otherwise is simply denying reality.

(Which is also a switch off - lose touch with reality, but in exchange feel good about yourself.)