Please tell me the truth about car seats…

I think the point I was trying to make was that plenty of parents have £250-300 to purchase an expensive spin seat when they could invest that money into a seat which would last a child much longer. There just isn’t the information for parents about the safety of rear facing for as long as possible, or at least 5, which you are unlikely to achieve for most children in a spin seat. I wish there was better information out there to help parents make more informed decisions.

None of the seats I listed above are Isofix. ERF Isofix seats are very expensive and not as long lasting due to the weight limits imposed by the Isofix attachments. You’re right that Isofix removes a lot of the use error, but if you buy a tethered ERF seat from a reputable seller, then they should provide you with support to ensure that the seat is installed correctly and will continue to provide that support for the lifetime of the seat.

Apologies I got the name of the system used in F1 incorrect. The other reason FF in a harness is unsafe for children is the relative increased weight of their head in relation to the rest of their body.

But yes, I don’t want to derail the thread about the use of HBB. The law in the UK is woefully inadequate and children should really be in an appropriate HBB until 150cm, which would give them the best chance of passing the 5 point test as other people have mentioned up thread.

I’m not disputing the value for money, but plenty of parents do not have £250 to spend on any car seat in one go.

The cheapest Axkid you list is not Isofix, and any seatbelt seat is liable to be incorrectly installed, which adds another layer of potential danger.

F1 (and other open cockpit racing series) use Halo or similar systems but it’s to protect against impact forces, not hold the head in place. The HANS system is connected to the seatbelts and helmet, and protects against the kind of injuries you are talking about.

Anyway, this is moving the thread away from the booster discussion, and I don’t disagree with you about the fundamentals.

The rule is 135cm or age 12 they no longer need it. You'll need to measure her and not just guess.

I think it's quite common that people do not abide by this though. My eldest DD is almost 7. I've noticed so many parents picking kids up from gymnastics etc and the kids just jumping in the front seat! One of the mums has 2 kids same age as mine (youngest 4). She drove off before I'd even got one of mine in her seat. Eldest was in the front and I assume youngest was maybe in a booster or something she was able to do herself.

My boss let on to me last week that she often doesn't put her just turned 6yr old in a carseat anymore. She only puts him in one for long journeys. She did say oh I know I should but.....

My girls are small so they'll be in them for a long time yet lol. I'll probably start having the same issue as you in a few years with my eldest complaining.

A FF seat is better than no seat.
A FF seat is better than an ill-fitting or outgrown RF seat.
A well fitted RF seat is better than a a well fitted FF seat.

We had a reversible seat back when DD2 was a toddler. One time we hired a car and however we tried, it could not be fitted RF. It was safer in that circumstance to fit it properly FF.

For a child under 5, rear facing will always be safer. The vast majority of accidents occur on lower speed roads local to home. Even at 20mph, if two vehicles hit each other head on that’s an impact of 40mph. But you’re right that more catastrophic accidents happen at speed.

I think, but I could be wrong, that F1 racing drivers have something called the Halo system which holds their helmet to prevent excessive forward movement of their head in a crash which might cause severe injuries to the neck and even death.

With respect to ERF seats, some of them are expensive but there are a number a seats which are well below £400:
Axkid Move 25kg/125cm £230
Avionaut Sky Q 25kg/125cm £300
Britax Safeway M 36kg/125cm £280
Britax Max-Safe Pro 36kg/125cm £300

Having looked at some of the more commonly used spin seats, these can be £250-300 and only rear face to 18kg (an average 4 year old) with poor leg room. The ERF seats listed above offer great value for money as they could last to 7 years if not longer.

I'm with you on this 100%
My daughter is 8 and tall for age at nearly 140cm so legally doesn't have to use a car seat. But the one time we tried without (giving her much shorter friend a lift so I put friend in her car seat and her with no car seat) it looked really wrong, the upper strap of the car seat was completely in the wrong position.
Some other countries the requirement is 150cm, and with her at 140 looking too short, I think 150 would be much more sensible. After that incident we got a no back booster to keep in car boot for these situations.
She also complains about friends being allowed in front and no car seat, and I also see this all the time and she is only year 3. She is 5-10cm taller than all the girls, so none of them are over the 135 legal requirement, and that itself (and UK car seat laws in general) are already slack
I used to work in a major UK paediatric trauma centre where serious RTA's were brought in by air ambulance. It was horrific how many children were not in appropriate car seats at all ages (it was on the reports from the paramedics). One girl who was allowed in front aged 6 still haunts me - HD her legs on the dashboard in front and impact shattered both her legs so badly that they had to be amputated completely!

Lots of my DC friends have not been in car seats for years, or have a booster seat at most. My understanding was that the booster seats don't really offer much more safety than just sitting in the standard seat of the car. Surely if a booster seat is needed anyway than the child should still be in a car seat 🤷‍♀️

My 2 youngest aged 10 and 8 are still in their car seats. I don't care what their friends are doing

Also meant to say that in a rear-end collision, facing forwards is safer - again because the body moves towards the impact, so the seat will hold the body and neck in place. But in the most dangerous crashes - front on, high speed - rear facing with 5 point harness is safer.

This isn’t quite true. The person moves towards the impact in a crash. Racing drivers are likely to have a frontal impact, ie crash into the car(s) ahead and thus their head move forwards whilst body is held in position by their harness. Of course, the impact forces will be less than if travelling in opposite directions ie head-on crash, but at racing speeds those impacts are likely to be comparable to a head-on road crash.

Seatbelts have very sophisticated timing systems. Once a crash is detected, they will slightly expand and contract in a specific sequence to draw the person into the seat without whipping them back or crushing their chest.

Harnesses attached to car seats don’t have these timing systems (which are integrated with other car systems like airbags and crumple zones so they all work in unison).

However, they do spread the impact forces over greater areas of the body, which is generally safer, especially on smaller bodies. They are also better at holding the body in position than seatbelts. Internal decapitation is a risk with extreme head movement but it’s also a risk of an incorrectly fitting seatbelt (ie not on shoulder correctly) even at relatively low speeds.

I presume (but haven’t checked) that racing car harnesses are integrated with the car systems in a similar way, so have the advantage of timing systems and spreading the forces.

So it’s not as simple as ‘harness = bad, seatbelt = better’ - there are lots of factors regarding size, weight, positioning that will all come into play.

Rear facing is safer in the most dangerous crashes - frontal impact where vehicles are travelling in opposite directions (most impact energy) as they will hold the body and head against the car seat. However, for the vast majority of driving, head-on collisions are either lower speed (around town) or unlikely at high speed (motorways / dual carriageways have segregated traffic. If most of the driving someone does is on unrestricted A roads, ERF is probably very sensible. If it’s mostly 20 roads around town, the risk of forward facing with a harness is less (but erf is still better).

Parents should be informed enough to make their own risk analysis and buy the best / safest seat their budget allows. I just had a quick look and couldn’t find an ERF seat for 4+ for much less than £400.

By law it’s 135cm but it’s recommended until 150cm.

My DD is 11 years old, 133cm tall and therefore still in a car seat (hbb or booster cushion depending upon car). I suspect that she won't hit the big 135 before her 12th birthday but then she could legally sit in a car without a car seat which is completely bizarre (leaving aside the fact that many other countries have a higher limit).

Firstly, I presume (or rather hope) you are not driving like a racing driver.

Racing drivers are all driving in the same direction, therefore collisions are unlikely to be head on. However, on the roads, most serious collisions are head on.

In a head on crash, in a harness, the child’s head will continue to move forward as it is unrestrained. Their chest will not, as it is fully restrained. Thus their neck takes on a massive strain and they can be internally decapitated.

When wearing a seatbelt, their whole body can absorb the shock.

If you look at countries like Sweden, who have the best road safety in the world, they don’t use a forward facing harness at all.

We (as a family) don’t either. My kids will stay rear facing until at least school age, and once they can consistently sit properly in a hbb, they will go straight to that. There is no need for a forward facing harness, kids can stay rear facing until they reach 36kg which is an average 11 year old. Now obviously many people would not want to rear face their kids that long, but if you are going by “safest” then you should.

Measure her. Use one til she gets to 135cm (or age 12!) and don't concern yourself with what other parents are doing, that's on them.

There is also a problem for children who are forward facing in a 5 point harness. The harness holds their torso in place but allows no forward motion in the event of a crash as you get with a seat belt. This means only the child's head is thrown forward, placing greater stress on the neck and increasing the risk of serious neck injuries. But they keep the child in the seat and are better than impact shields but extended rear facing is still by far the best and safest option wherever possible.

Forward facing with a harness can lead to internal decapitation in a cash as the shoulders are pinned back and only the neck can move.

Harness in a rear facing seat is far safer as the whole body is protected by the car seat in the event of a crash.

So outgrowing a rear facing seat then going to a good quality high back booster seat is safer than moving forward facing with a harness. But you wouldn't use a high back booster seat until 5 or 6 years old or more.

@remembe

I disagree. My 11 year old is safer in a booster than without because the seatbelt is then 'sitting' correctly on her body. There is no additional protection in a crash as you say but she can no longer fit into a HBB but doesn't satisfy the 5 point check for a seatbelt.

Because there are more points of failure between the 5 point harness and the car structure than there are between the integrated 3 point harness and the car structure. So you are more likely for the 5 point belt to fail in a high speed collision (seat from isofix or belt itself) than a 3 point.

How in anyone's imagine can a 5 point harness be less safe than a 3 point seat belt?

Stop and think that though.
If a 3 point seat belt was safer or less dangerous or safer than a 5 (or 6) point harness. Why would racing drivers opt for a 5/6 point harness? (6 points have two straps between the legs rather than one, I'm guessing to avoid squishing the family jewels)

Harnessed seats can be more dangerous than a high backed booster. We never used a forward facing harness for safety reasons.

I can’t even fit in between our kids seats in the back of our moderately large car. I’m a size 12.

To answer the original question, we don’t use forward facing harnesses for safety reasons. We went straight from rear facing to belted in a hbb at around 5. We will use a hbb until she finishes primary school, which will be just before she turns 12.

Many people in her class already don’t use hbb’s - some have backless boosters, many have nothing at all.

People are generally pretty ignorant about car seat safety. There are kids at my sons nursery who get dropped off in a work van with no car seat. There is only one other parent who I see rear facing their kid at nursery. And even the nursery staff insist on putting his jacket on as we leave (despite the fact that the car is parked right next to the door and he is outside for seconds) - most young kids I see wear jackets in car seats!

Way too many people are way too relaxed about car seat safety.....moving children forward facing or into boosters without an inbuilt harness too young being prime examples. Don't get sucked into the peer pressure OP

I genuinely didn't know that, I thought it was just the chest strap types. I will stop saying no to dc when they remove layers when they get in the car!

Booster cushions help postion the seat belts so they are on kids hip bones rather than soft tissue. Same with the diagonal belts put it on the shoulder rather than neck.
Look for crash test videos.
If seat belts are uncomfortable kids are likely to either put the diagonal bit behind them or under the arm. Both of which are very dangerous.

A booster won't provide side impact protection (obviously) but they can be a good stepping stone for older kids moving out of HBB.

We are going through this same situation. Lots of parents seeing the uk law as a goal to reach rather than a bare legal minimum, others not even bothering to with the legal minimum. My eldest (9 and over 135cm) gets cross as she feels the odd one out, she regularly sees her friends and even their younger siblings jumping into the car or front seat with no seatbelt. I am not interested in what others do or minimal legal limits, my only focus is keeping my children (and any others we drive) as safe as possible.

a couple of years ago we were stationary at traffic lights. The lights changed but the car in front was slow to move off so my DH waited to pull away. The car behind was somehow watching the lights rather than the cars so went to pull away but instead crashed straight into the back of us. A really slow speed accident but both me and my DH plus our forward facing eldest were jolted forward and had pain in our nexks afterwards. The noise the crash made was shocking. Our RF toddler slept peacefully through the whole thing.

i totally understand the apprehension of removing the HBB. Even people on this thread are saying 'why?' But it's because you are taking away another layer of safety from your child. Every passenger in a car (inc adults) would be safest rear facing, HBB which go up to 150cm say that they reduce the risk of side impact head injuries by 20%. Many people seem to focus more on convenience and the 'maturity contest' others have mentioned than ultimately the safety of their child. I will be keeping the car seats and HBBs as long as I possibly can. My youngest is still rear facing at 6.5 and still comfy, my eldest I am hoping can stay in a HBB till at least 150cm. I tend to decline invites unless I can drive them myself, and very rarely offer lifts to others (we will all instead) as I know most friends won't have or be expected to use a car seat and I am not comfortable with that.

Is this true? I'd genuinely like to know more (my children are nowhere near that stage yet). Does it not help to at least make sure the seatbelt is in the right place? It's shocking really that only in the early 90s were we all travelling to nursery on just a booster. I remember a friend with siblings a few years younger had HBBs by the late 90s and I'd never seen them before.