Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 19:46:37 GMT From: th <someguynospamwhere.se> Subject: Re: Baby saftey seat and airbags
th wrote: > Blacksmith wrote: > >> "gw" <no.spamnospam.com> skrev i meddelandet >> news:idqdnVfx3PS0P1zfRVn-2Anospamphia.com... >> >>> "Keith" <keith.gatfordnospampi.nospam.net> wrote in message >>> news:d9s701$b6f$1nospam-news1.kolumbus.fi... >>> >>>> My 2001 9-3 is not fitted with a passanger front air bag but it does >>>> have >>> >>> >>> a >>> >>>> side airbag on both sides. I am aware that the baby seat should not be >>>> placed on the front seat if an airbag is active, but does that also >>> >>> >>> include >>> >>>> side airbags? If so, is the dealer able to deactivate the passanger >>>> side >>>> airbag? >>>> >>>> thanks, Keith >>>> >>>> >>> >>> A baby seat should not be placed in the front seat of any 4-seat car, >>> airbag >>> or not. If there is a rear seat, it should go there. The only >>> exception is >>> 2-seat vehicles, such as pickup trucks. These will have a disable >>> function >>> for the passenger bag. >>> >>> Much higher survival potential in the rear. >>> >>> >> >> >> No No No!! A child shall be be placed in the front passenger seat with >> a special babyseat mounted. Airbag switched off. Here in Sweden we >> have used this for a long time and this have saved a lot of babies. I >> donĄt know why you still drive with the small kids in the back. The >> child fly like a stone the whole way from the back and hits the >> windscreen if you hit something. >> >> When your child is older is another thing. >> > The main problem is that the age limit is considered to be different in > different countries. In US the NHTSA recommends to keep the children > rear faced at least up to 12 months of age. This is completely crazy!!!! > All real accident statistics show that if the children are rear faced up > to say 4 years the mortality drastically decreases. > > I have seen a diagram in a newspaper comparing infant mortality age by > age in Sweden and Germany (where they start placing the children > front-facing at the age of about 1 year. For the first year the figures > are comparable but between the age of 1 and 4 about twice as many German > children are killed as in Sweden (all relative numbers of course). > > I will try to post a link if I can find the diagram on the web. > Not nice replying to your own posts but here is a link to the diagram: http://www.folksam.se/resurser/pdf/Folksam_Fara_br_forsk.pdf In Swedish sorry, but look at page 8 where the risk of death or injury between Sweden and Germany is compared The German situation is even worse than I remembered. When you start placing children front facing at the age of 1, like is common in Germany, the death/injury risk is increased by a factor of 4-5 compared with rear-face seating. In Sweden there is an increase in injury rate at the age of 4 when most parents start turning their children front-facing (NHTSA should see these figures and hopefully change their recommendation for preschoolers/toddlers, saving the lifes of quite some amount of US children!). Note also that today it is even more important that the child is rear-seated with _no_ seat belt slack (= stuck tight to the dashboard) as modern cars are stiffer, maintain the passenger volume more intact and thus generate higher collision retardation forces than cars from the 80-ies (page 9 of the report) -- th
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |