Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:59:27 GMT From: "someguy" <someguynopsamhere.se> Subject: Re: 9-5 Passenger Airbag - how to disable?
<davehinznopsamcop.net> wrote in news:b7eldp$51a4$1nopsam34476.news.dfncis.de... > Someone who looks an awful lot like someguy <someguynopsamhere.se> wrote: > > > Actually both accident statistics and research shows that the safest place is in > > the front seat. There are several reasons for this: > > I'm sure you can provide a cite for this statement, right? Could you > please do so? Please read the other posts I made in this thread where you can find the references. Unfortunately most of them are in Swedish. > > - In the front the child seat has a strong support when leaning towards the > > panel which supports the seat even during very hard front collisions. Modern > > cars are designed to give acceptable collision decelleration for any objects > > inside the passenger area and thus the child can take also a rather severe > > collision. If the child seat is mounted in the rear it is supported only by the > > back of the front seat, which gives a much more unsafe support than the panel. > > Not true. Current production cars (at least in the US) have a tether point > for securing the child seat to, and Saab will retrofit these into older cars > on request (at, I believe, no cost). There is no tether in the front seat, > and the car seat would be mounted to the front seat by the 3-point belts, > which is not as solid of a connection to the car as that same 3-point belt > in the back with a tether. > > > The situation can be improved by using a child seat stand that goes down to the > > floor, but it is still inferior to the front seat mounting. > > I've never seen such a device. Have you? Yes, I bought one more than 10 years ago but maybe they are not available on the US market. > > > - Collision tests show that child seats mounted in the rear give higher stresses > > on the child body than seats mounted in the front. The trick to reduce the body > > stresses is to be able to have the child seat follow the car collision impulse > > curve as much as possible (this is done by having the seat mounted as tight as > > possible, welding is the best method here!) > > I've never seen a carseat designed to be welded into a car, nor have I > seen a car designed to have a child carseat welded into it. Have you? No, this was just a metafor to say that the child seat mounting should be as stiff as possible. > > and by spreading the collision > > forces on as large area as possible of the child body (this is done by making > > the child seat back as large as possible ) > > The area of the back of the carseat has nothing to do with anything, it's > contact of the child with the carseat, which of course, is carried out with the > 5-way harness in the carseat. > > > - If the child is placed in the rear never place it close to the door, rather in > > the middle (and don't forget the supporting stand to the car floor!). The reason > > for this is that the post between the front and rear door is the weakest point > > of the car at a side collision. > > Cite, please? A Swedish page again, please see the discussion with "Nutmegger" > > Also for a side collision the front seat > > mounting is superior since the car is strongest at the front post, which in > > combination with the fairly stiff wall between the engine and passenger areas > > protects the child extremely well. > > I strongly disagree. The rear axle tunnel gives quite a bit of horizontal > resistance in an impact; there is no analogous structure in the front except > for the firewall, which is too far forward to do much in a t-bone collision. > The doors (as, er, I'm sure you know) have had beams in them since 1973 for > this sort of collision, to transmit force in the doors into the pillars. > > > - The available volume is often larger in the front, which means that the child > > can sit facing the rear much longer. Scientists recommend to have children in > > reverse mounted child seats up to the age of 4 or 5. > > Really? Can you provide (...you know the rest...) Where is the kid's legs > supposed to go, by the way? Have you ever *seen* a 4 or 5 year old kid? Again, all Swedish recommendations are in this age range. This is the main reason why front seat mounting of the child seat is recommended, because the room for legs is much better. An example is this page from the Swedish National Road Administration http://www.vv.se/faq/barn_bil/barn10.htm where rear-faced seating is recommended up to the age of 4. The main reson is that even at this age the head constitutes about 18% of the body mass (6% for an adult) and is very hevy in relation to the strength of the skeleton and muscles. In one of the reports I read from the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute http://www.vti.se/pdf/reports/N46-2001.pdf that summarises five years of all lethal accidents in Sweden involving children there are some cases with forward-faced 3-4 year children where the investigation indicates that the child would have had better chances rear-faced. The main injury here was that the prolonged part of the spinal chord (in the neck) was ripped apart due to the stress forces caused by the heavy head bouncing forward since it was seated forward-facing.. > > - Having the child in the front reduces the risk of ending up in accident. A US > > study shows that the risk of getting an accident at all is increased by about > > 30% if the child sits in the rear seat, this is probably due to the poor contact > > between the driver and the rear seated child. > > Cite please? Again I have to believe the Swedish researchers when they are quoting such numbers. I have not looked for any such report myself. > > Car manufacturers tend to recommend to have the child seat in the rear just to > > simplify their responsibilities and to reduce the problems of being able to > > easily disconnect the airbag. > > Odd, then, that this advice predates airbags by many years. Clever of them > to think so far ahead. One might say "incredible", even. > > > Thus, don't trust the car manufacturers in this > > case, they are not looking at the problem from a child perspective. > > Perhaps they are instead using this thing called "science". Could you > kindly back up your statements with cites to some of it, please? Again, please see the links given in other postings to insurance companies and national research institutes. The discussion with "Nutmegger" seemed to conclude that different countries have different cultures and different ideas of what is best for the population, in this case the children in cars. As the traffic death rate in Sweden is one of the lowest in the world and since cars like Saab and Volvo are known to be among the safest cars in the world I guess the research done here is not completely wrong. > > > someguy > > Ah, of course. "I read it on the Internet from some guy who wouldn't > even give a name, so I know it's true." Gotcha. No this is just to try to avoid spam mails and to try to have some personal integrity on the web. I hope the references I have given (but maybe cannot be read by everybody due to language difficulties) shows that a lot of expertise lies behind what I am trying to express in this newsgroup. > -- someguy
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
