Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think its utter bollocks that child car seats have only saved 1 life a year since they became law

62 replies

NeedsAsockamnesty · 07/03/2017 21:23

In the UK.

I have just seen that claim made by someone and it's boggled my brain.

It can't be right can it?

And even if it is what about serious injury.
Every report I read says pretty much child car related fatalities and serious injuries decrease almost every year.

OP posts:
MaidOfStars · 07/03/2017 22:50

There's a Freakonomics (or similar) chapter on this. They concluded that car seats aren't in themselves the thing that saves lives, rather the seatbelt that can be safely harnessed to one. Or something to that effect. So I guess it depends on how you frame the question.

Hang on, I'll dig the book out and check.

MaidOfStars · 07/03/2017 23:06

Ok, chapter 4 of Superfreakonomics. A very quick summary (mine) as I scan the chapter (Note: 'seatbelt' refers to standard adult shoulder/lap belt):

  1. Children younger than 2 - car seat necessary because rear seatbelts cannot possibly restrain them.
  2. Children 2 and over - reported stats state rate of death same for those in car seats + seatbelt and those simply wearing rear seatbelt in absence of car seat. In some crashes - rear-enders - car seats + seatbelt performs worse than seatbelt alone.
  3. Test of 3 year old and 6 year old crash dummies - seatbelt alone performed equally as well as car seat + seatbelt.
  4. For non-fatal injuries - seatbelts just as good as car seat + seatbelt for serious injury; car seat + seatbelt reduces minor injuries by 25%.
  5. Solution - do not progressively increase age/weight/height requirements for car seats/boosters; design rear seat belts, which when it comes down to serious injuries do just as good a job, to be better i.e. allow them to fit children (majority of rear passengers) better.
Wando1986 · 07/03/2017 23:20

I thought they only helped extra when rear facing in impact and also for side-on impacts to reduce sideways motion. If you're in a crash that bad you're pretty much fucked either way. Car seats are only really beneficial in minor bumps/incidents aren't they?

ATruthUniversallyAcknowledged · 07/03/2017 23:29

Car seats are only really beneficial in minor bumps/incidents aren't they?

No. They save lives.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 07/03/2017 23:56

Von

We need to look further back than then I rememeber car seats being the law in the early 90's they were a requirement when I had my eldest.

I'm guessing around 1980 ish would be interesting

OP posts:
Sundance01 · 08/03/2017 00:00

Maidofstars - that is interesting - it seems to suggedt it is only in under 2's that they make s difference in comparison to seat belts.

I know cars in general have become so much safer in terms of crumple zones - how much the car crushes when hit - and side impact bags etc I had heard somewhere that it was seat belts that had made a massive difference to death figures and car seats have only made a tiny difference but this seems to suggest in over 2's they have made no difference.

NewBallsPlease00 · 08/03/2017 00:03

On basis 2 friends have been in awful crashes where babies only got out because of car seats I don't believe it !

Rainuntilseptember · 08/03/2017 10:19

I should send this thread to my mil. She'd love it, always trying to get me to take dd out of her hbb.

MaidOfStars · 08/03/2017 11:22

it seems to suggedt it is only in under 2's that they make s difference in comparison to seat belts
For serious injuries or death, yes. They reduce the incidence of minor injury in older age groups. They cause more injury (the book didn't specify the extent of injury) in rear-enders.

MaidOfStars · 08/03/2017 11:22

No. They save lives
In over-2s, no more than a seatbelt does.

Rainuntilseptember · 08/03/2017 11:50

But is that not, a properly fitted seatbelt, which they simply won't be? My four years old would not be held in by our rear seat belts.
And why has the law changed to support high back boosters if they aren't successful in reducing fatalities?

MaidOfStars · 08/03/2017 11:57

The data is from adult seat belts, which perform as well alone as in combination with a car seat (for +2s - I guess assuming average height/weights).

The conclusion is it would be more fruitful in the prevention of death/injury to make seatbelt a better suited for children - the majority of rear passengers - than keep passing legislation to require older and older children to be in boosters etc.

MaidOfStars · 08/03/2017 12:00

PS. I'm just passing on the chapter in Superfreakonomics. I'm not massively invested in this.

SpringerS · 08/03/2017 12:38

A big thing to remember is that car seats can only work when used properly. Locally to me a little girl was killed recently when the car she was in went into a barrel roll and she was thrown from the car, which then landed on her. Her parents and twin brother remained in the car and suffered only minor scratches and bruises. The little boy's car seat was properly secured, hers wasn't.

This was a catastrophic accident on a motorway, where cars had been travelling at full speed prior to the incident. So even in an inarguably major accident, the safety equipment in the cars had the potential to save everyone. But car seats are only really effective when used properly.

SpringerS · 08/03/2017 12:43

In over-2s, no more than a seatbelt does.

Well either that's not true or the study only looked into forward facing seats. I know someone who was in an accident last year and her 3.5 year old only survived because he was rear facing. The back of the car was crushed but the design of his seat meant he was pushed up and out of the destroyed area. If he had been just held in with a child's seat belt, he'd have been crushed.

savagehk · 08/03/2017 12:50

Re the freakonomics, doesn't that compare 'normal' forward facing seats with a simple lap belt, rather than extended rear facing seats, when looking at older children than infants?

BertieBotts · 08/03/2017 12:56

Well here you go, this is from the US, but it's a report into child car seats and how they performed in crashes from 1980 when they were not standardised and not legally required.

deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/500/44653.0001.001.pdf?sequence=2

There is description of injury and death including an upsetting one where the car seat actually trapped the child in a burning car. Thankfully modern seats are specifically designed to be easy to operate to avoid this problem. But I think the most surprising thing for me about this report was the fact that many of the car seats were reportedly used incorrectly and yet still protected children when the crash was not so catastrophic that nothing would have made any difference.

I wonder which particular child car seat law the OP's acquaintance was talking about, there have been a few.

1988 was the first law about child restraints and stated that they must be used if you had one, which in practice meant that they weren't needed at all. Most car seats at this point had to be permanently attached to the car which meant they were impractical unless your car was solely for family use. Likewise children over 3 had to use seatbelts even in the back, but only if they were installed. (Clunk click every trip originally only referred to front seats as rear seatbelts were less common).

In 1993 the law now stated that all children under the age of 3 must be in child restraints and children up to 14 in seatbelts, although for babies under a year this could be a carrycot. From 1992 rear seatbelts were legally required to be fitted in all cars.

The current laws requiring all children under 12 years or 135cm to use a car seat came in in 2006, but if you look at the BBC news reports from this time, there was quite some controversy over whether to introduce a law. By the early 00s, most parents were using child car seats past the age of 3 which was the legal minimum requirement. They were easily available and convenient to fit and so most people saw the sense in it. The difference then was that most people stopped using booster seats (if they used them at all) by about 5 or 6 years old, or switched to a booster too early from a harnessed seat. Awareness campaigns were trialled first because it was thought that it was better to convince parents of the safety of child seats and let them make their own decision than penalise people who found it inconvenient or had other reasons not to use a child restraint, it was hoped that common sense would persuade most people to use them except in situations where it was very difficult to, but this proved not to be the case and the awareness campaigns were unsuccessful in increasing car seat/booster seat usage (TBH I don't remember ever seeing any of them so perhaps they were just crap?) So the law was brought in and caused much confusion, but car seat use has increased since then.

I would suspect that the "one life saved every year" figure, if it's not been pulled out of the air, refers to this increase in the law from 2006, being the biggest change to car seat laws in the last 20 years, since it mainly covers the category of older children, and many parents were already using child seats for their children anyway.

Here's a modern report with estimates on numbers of lives saved and injuries avoided though I haven't read it. www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Review/10074

MulderitsmeX · 08/03/2017 12:58

I know of 3 children (same accident) who the doctors stated would not have lived without their car seats .

Gileswithachainsaw · 08/03/2017 13:01

Can anyone remember the testing thing?

Didn't it come out with taht car set re call that in this country the standard testing only tested to 30mph or something ajd it was Bother country that had the more vigourous extended testing where the seat failed?

I can well imagine the figure is close when talking about standard low speed roads.

savagehk · 08/03/2017 13:11

"Can anyone remember the testing thing?

Didn't it come out with taht car set re call that in this country the standard testing only tested to 30mph or something ajd it was Bother country that had the more vigourous extended testing where the seat failed?

I can well imagine the figure is close when talking about standard low speed roads."

I did look into car seat testing following a video online of a seat with a harness vs a seat with a bar across the child's lap instead. I seem to recall the minimum 'roll over' test was something completely daft and assumed the roll took about a minute to complete. I've seen a car roll, that's not realistic in the slightest. I do think though that other European countries have stronger testing regimes (perhaps all not compulsory), I think one's by ADAC (??).

brasty · 08/03/2017 13:12

Yes Freakonomics talks about how car seats are only tested to 30mph, and some twist and buckle at higher speed impacts. Seatbelts are tested to a higher speed.

BertieBotts · 08/03/2017 13:20

You're probably thinking of Euro NCAP which is a voluntary standard for crash testing actual cars. That operates at 40mph, and Which? and other independent testing bodies (ADAC) use this test standard as a model to base their car seat testing on.

It's higher than the legal minimum test (for car seats) of 30mph which is standard across the EU under both R44 and R129 (i-size) legislation. I believe US and Australian car seat regulations also only require a 30mph test, but I'm not 100% sure off the top of my head. 30mph is standard for most car and car seat testing because higher speeds are more difficult to set up and additionally the forces on the vehicle itself become too unpredictable at higher speeds. There is not much sense in strapping a car seat to a solid block and smashing it into a wall to see how it performs (which is how standard car seat crash tests are done) when at high speeds you're going to be dealing with intrusions into the car, rebound, aftershocks, rolling and all kinds of issues. A slight change in angle of impact at high speed is going to affect a crash differently which means that it only really makes sense to test at low speeds.

Maxi Cosi is the only manufacturer which state their own crash testing speeds and they are the highest I can find at 45mph.

BertieBotts · 08/03/2017 13:25

Regulations are the same across the EU. ADAC is a consumer organisation like Which?