|Re: (Illinois) Car-seat law aims to protect children

[Kane]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:34:20 -0700, "bobb" >
wrote:

>More stupid laws. First, consider how many people had to buy a
larger
>vehicle, perhaps even an SUV, in order to fit three or four car
seats.
>
>Consider how many car seat must be purchased, enriching big business.
>
>Consider the hassel of getting three kids in and out of car seats
during
>shopping trips and other places.
>
>Consider the distraction to any driver who much reach behind to
comfort a
>child tied into a car seat.
>
>How would you like to be secured to a seat for any length of time
having
>your movements severly restricted?
>
>
>I say this because there are NO safety advantages to support the use
of car
>seats. None.. noda.
>
>I e-mailed the NTSB as well as the CDC who keep records of accidents
and
>injuries.. but they have not done a vehicle 'hurt' report for years.
>Fatalities, yes.. but not injuries. Digging into the depths of
information
>I can find on the net suggests there are many, many, more serious
injuries
>caused by so-called safety devices such as airbags, seat belts, and
the
>shoulder harrnness than anyone (the government) wants to admit. For
>instance, I never found any indication of eye injuries or resulting
>blindness due to exploding air bags.. and pointed out on a recent
episode of
>Dateline. For some, I'm sure.. that's worse than death! Head and
neck
>injuries, spinal cord damage, and severe concusion have occured under
>circumstances when either a drive or passenger would've walked away
>unharmed... including car seats. Others have been trapped in burning
>vehicles or submerged underwater yet none of these events can be
found in
>any government data. In fact, hospitals do not identify such
injuries nor
>do police reports.
>
>I have found articles from General Motors that question the
protection said
>to be afforded by seat belts and/or airbags... and car seats. In
fact, for
>the last five years their study which suggest no advanage, has been
>continued for further evaluation at the instanace of the federal
government.
>
>
>What prompted my interest was the use of child 'safety' seats that
have
>resulted in serioius injury. Complaints from many parents are
begining to
>surface. The tact used today is to blame the parents for improper
use of
>the car seat.. that bull. Think about it.
>
>One needs to consider that a baby's head is larger and heavier than
the rest
>of his body. I sudden stop or crash causes the baby's head to thrust
forward
>while is body is held securely in place. The result is had, neck and
back
>injury as well has other internal damage. Injuries such as this are
never
>reported.. and if the media does pick it up.. they report it in the
sense
>that the car seat prevented death without stopping to consider there
would
>have been no injury. Admittedly, most of these injuries are 'minor',
>meaning they are not pemaently disabling but what of the 100's who
are not
>so lucky.
>
>The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 500
children
>are killed every year in fatal car wrecks.
>Oh... did you think the total was much higher? Car wrecks that not
even a
>car seat could have prevented... but what of the deaths attributed to
car
>seats?
>
>Every year, hundreds of children suffer serious and often fatal
injuries in
>automobile accidents, even though they were restrained in child
safety seats
>or booster seats. Many of these injuries and deaths could have been
>prevented and most of these children could have survived the
accidents
>without any serious injuries if they had not restrained in child
safety
>seats.. a.quote by the National Safety Forum. When only 500
children are
>killed annually.. yet hundreds suffer serious and fatal injuries as
the
>direct result of car seats... please tell me how you can considered
them
>safe??
>
>We, the public are being deceived. Why? Safety, even imagined
safety,
>sells. Good for business... not good for the people. Before you
turn the
>heat up on me.. do some research yourself. I suggest many in this
thread to
>really too young to recall the history of seat belts, etc.... but
it's been
>a long, open battle. Not unlike that of the air bag which was found
in
>disfavor a few years ago when children and older people were being
killed in
>accidents where no injury would have resulted. Engineers are still
trying
>to 'perfect; the air bag... less pressure, aimed below the eyes,
etc..
>because of government mandates... not because they are safe.
>
>bobb

If your analysis is correct this is too important a subject to leave
out citations with source access included.

Please include actual quotes and the source so we may look for
ourselves.

By the way, the problem of children's heads being disproportionally
large for their bodies, compared to adults, is solved usually by the
strong suggestion that child car seats for infants and small toddlers
be installed child facing the rear, in the front seat. That also
protects them from the airbag, and cars are now coming with passenger
airbag disablers. That also removes the problem you stated of having
to turn to comfort a distressed child in the back seat.

And one more item I noticed that bears comment: children are not
unaccustomed to being confined. It's a condition of the womb and is
common in many cultures...including our own american native
populations. It usually makes them feel more relaxed. Some parents
have been known to keep a car seat child carrier in the house for the
fussy baby that has trouble falling to sleep.

My own boy was an exception. He could get out of any of the primative
early car seats, and did, regularly. But then he was special...r r r
r. But then he could also fall asleep leaning against a wall if he
took the notion.

I've no investment in auto child safety devices one way or another
other than to care about child safety in general.

So, citations and sources please. Thanks, Kane

[bobb]

"CPS Darren" > wrote in message
om...
> > > By the way, the problem of children's heads being disproportionally
> > > large for their bodies, compared to adults, is solved usually by the
> > > strong suggestion that child car seats for infants and small toddlers
> > > be installed child facing the rear, in the front seat.
> >
> > Thanks for that observation, Kane. It's one I've ranted about for years
and
> > I 'heard' there are some new car seats that will be facing to the rear.
> > Which makes me wonder... will the older style be out-lawed?
> >
>
> Almost every current convertible model in the USA has a 30, 33 or 35
> pound rear-facing limit. Some are tall enough to keep average sized
> kids rear-facing to 3 years and beyond. Rear-facing is safest, and
> keeping children rear-facing for as long as possible is the
> recommendation from the American Academy of Pediatrics and almost
> every child passenger safety advocacy group. Sweden has an extremely
> low motor vehicle fatality rate for young kids, in part because they
> are among the most progressive at keeping kids rear-facing, often up
> to 3-5 years old.
>
>
>
> > Every year, hundreds of children suffer serious and often fatal injuries
in
> > automobile accidents, even though they were restrained in child safety
seats
> > or booster seats.
>
>
> Motor vehicle crashes remain the #1 cause of fatal injury for all kids
> in age groups 1-14. Unrestrained kids account for over half those
> fatalities, according to the CDC. Various statistics can be found
> here:

I note that unrestrained kids account over half of the fatalities... while
the lessor half died using restraints. Sounds sorta like 50/50 to me...
especially when we nothing of the type of accidents involved.

My site found the same observation as yours, except my age group was 1 -11
and I thank you for the additional sites but let me add this.... for the
most part, I am speaking of injury.. not the motality rate. I'm sure child
seats do not cause many, if any, deaths... but they do cause serious and
disabling injury.


..

Additionally , and I quote, ..."there were many of these injuries and deaths
that could have been prevented and most of these children could have
survived the accidents without any serious injuries if they had NOT been
restrained in child safety seats". re: National Safety Forum.

However, Every year, hundreds of children suffer serious and often eatal
injuries in automobile accidents, even though they were restrained in child
safety seats or booster seats" re: National Safety Forum.



>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/chldseat.htm
>
> http://www.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540
>
>
> > Many of these injuries and deaths could have been
> > prevented and most of these children could have survived the accidents
> > without any serious injuries if they had not restrained in child
safety
> > seats... National Safety Forum.
>
>
> Would you kindly link a reference to this organization and quote,
> please?
>
>
> > It seems to me, there is a single belief that thousands of kids under
the
> > age of six are being killed or injured in automobile accidents.. which
just
> > isn't true either.
>
>
> For the numbers, please access the CDC data for any recent year. In
> the subgroup for unintentional fatal injury, motor vehicle crashes
> will be the #1 cause, and be higher than any other cause until the
> 35-44 age bracket. The CDC also keeps the WiSQARS database for
> non-fatal injuries. For non-fatal injuries, falls are usually the top
> cause, though motor vehicle crashes are typically in the top 10
> causes.

My immeditate recall agrees with your data... missing though, are automobile
injuries by a catagory that might suggest a causative factor. Padded
dashboards found favor many years age.. but were quickly dropped.




>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
>
> Highway fatalities have dropped significantly over the years.
> Increases in seatbelt and child restraint use are a part of this,
> along with safer vehicles and better education about impaired driving.
> While it's possible we're all being duped in some grand conspiracy to
> force us to use restraints, I personally don't believe this is the
> case.

I have little information about fatalities but I recall reading somewhere
that there has been little change since the 60's... but please don't quote
me on that.

>
> It might be worth talking to professional drivers and looking at their
> restraint systems to see if the 5-point harnesses in child restraints
> have any technical merit. A crash reconstructionist at your local,
> county or state police department is another good source of real world
> information. They probably see as many grisly crashes as anyone.

Actually not so, they do not 'see' much. As you say, though, they try to
reconstruct an accident which is darn near impossible except for the obvious
and ones and again there are many variables. I tried my darnest to find
the site with comments from at least on of the big three automakers
suggesting car seats and the like offer little protection but I can't find
it. It is a rather important and profound statement and wish I could pass
on the entire article.

Off the subject.. but along with that site I'm looking for was an
announcement by three insurance agencies that found anti-lock braking
systems the causative factor in many accidents, including roll-overs, and
were calling for their elimination. Anti-lock brakes were reviewed in that
same light by 60 minutes, 48 hours, or whatever sometime back.... but that
was the last word... nothing since.


Not
> surprisingly, many are child passenger safety advocates. Other good
> people to reference are emergency room surgeons. They have a name for
> the severe abdominal injuries associated with lap belts, "Seatbelt
> Syndrome." Unfortunately, this syndrome is often the subject of case
> studies when kids put the shoulder belts behind their back. This is a
> common scenario when the seatbelts don't fit them, and a booster isn't
> used to obtain the correct fit.


Hmm... interesting.. I didn't know they had a name for that.. and I'm not
sure it is reported for statistical purposes... at least I couldn't find
that kind of data. I have yet to seach all of the sites you provided.
There's a lot to read.

BTW... when was the first time you heard about this 'syndrome'? Has anyone
suggested that kids SHOULDN'T use seat belts to prevent that kind of injury?
..

I have an e-mail that the NTSB sent me a while back... they used the word
'tunneling' wherein a child does not propertly fit the lap belt of shoulder
harrness. They scurried around my original questions and never did give me
an answer. I'll post a copy later tonight.

I have to say at least you did some homework.. and a rather good job, too,
except I'm trying to ferret out Hurt reports.. not Mortaliy reports.


>
>
> Darren
> http://www.car-safety.org

[bobb]

Here my e-mail response from the CDC. I only wish to note these injuries
are not known to the general public.

I recall the cases made AGAINST lap belts when the shoulder harness was
first introducted. I was astounded that the injury data (and deaths) had
never before been made public in those cases as well.

Anyway, here's the e-mail....

bobb

Winston and Durbin (two study groups) note that when children are
prematurely graduated to seat
belts from child seats, the lap belt rides up over the abdomen and the
shoulder belt crosses the neck or face instead of the shoulder. This places
the child at risk of submarining (sliding out of the lap belt during a
crash) and for injuries to the neck as a result of the poor fit of the
shoulder belt. Due to this poor fit, the shoulder belt is sometimes placed
under the child's arm or behind their back. This reduces the belt's
effectiveness by allowing excessive forward movement in a crash. Rapid
bending about a poorly positioned lap belt increases the risk of
intra-abdominal and spinal cord injuries, and brain injury due to the impact
of the child's head with their knees or the vehicle interior. Citation:
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) June 1999, Vol 281, pages
2070-72.

Thank you for your comment,
Ann Dellinger, PhD, MPH
Epidemiologist and Team Leader
Motor Vehicle Injury Prevention Team
CDC

[abacus]

(CPS Darren) wrote in message >...
>
> Motor vehicle crashes remain the #1 cause of fatal injury for all kids
> in age groups 1-14. Unrestrained kids account for over half those
> fatalities, according to the CDC.

Just a quick point on statistics here: Unless we know what percent of
children are riding restrained versus unrestrained, the percent of
fatalites in each category is not particularly helpful. If 90% of
children ride restrained, but account only 50% of fatalities then
restraints are saving lives. If 50% of children ride restrained,
then restraints aren't making any difference. If only 10% of
children ride restrained, but still account for 50% of fatalities,
then restraints are making the situation worse. Without a base rate
for comparison, no conclusions can be drawn from the statistics
presented.

> Various statistics can be found here:
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/chldseat.htm
>
> http://www.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540
>

[Circe]

abacus wrote:
> (CPS Darren) wrote in message
> >...
>> Motor vehicle crashes remain the #1 cause of fatal injury for all
>> kids in age groups 1-14. Unrestrained kids account for over half
>> those fatalities, according to the CDC.
>
> Just a quick point on statistics here: Unless we know what percent of
> children are riding restrained versus unrestrained, the percent of
> fatalites in each category is not particularly helpful. If 90% of
> children ride restrained, but account only 50% of fatalities then
> restraints are saving lives. If 50% of children ride restrained,
> then restraints aren't making any difference. If only 10% of
> children ride restrained, but still account for 50% of fatalities,
> then restraints are making the situation worse. Without a base rate
> for comparison, no conclusions can be drawn from the statistics
> presented.
>
Agreed. FWIW, the statistics I have seen show seatbelt compliance for all
riders to be in the 65-80% range in most states and since all states mandate
the use of restraints for children under the age of 2, one would expect the
rate of compliance for children to be higher than for the general
population. I think it is probably safe to assume that the use of restraints
for infants and toddlers is in the 80-90% range, in the 70-80% range for
young children (roughly 3-6yo), and in the general population range of
65-80% for children aged 6 and up. All of which would indicate that the use
of restraints *does* make a significant difference in safety.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [7/22/97], Aurora [7/19/99], and Vernon's [3/2/02] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Loose weight, feel great!" -- fair booth sign

What does it all mean? I have *no* idea. But it's my life and I like it.

[CPS Darren]

(abacus) wrote in message >...
> (CPS Darren) wrote in message >...
> >
> > Motor vehicle crashes remain the #1 cause of fatal injury for all kids
> > in age groups 1-14. Unrestrained kids account for over half those
> > fatalities, according to the CDC.
>
> Just a quick point on statistics here: Unless we know what percent of
> children are riding restrained versus unrestrained, the percent of
> fatalites in each category is not particularly helpful. If 90% of
> children ride restrained, but account only 50% of fatalities then
> restraints are saving lives. If 50% of children ride restrained,
> then restraints aren't making any difference. If only 10% of
> children ride restrained, but still account for 50% of fatalities,
> then restraints are making the situation worse. Without a base rate
> for comparison, no conclusions can be drawn from the statistics
> presented.
>
> > Various statistics can be found here:
> >
> > http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
> >
> > http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/chldseat.htm
> >
> > http://www.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540
> >


You are exactly right. The same logic can be used to counter the data
"supporting" the hypothesis that restraining passengers with seatbelts
causes more injuries/fatalities.

In any case, I hope there is no dispute that motor vehicle crashes are
the #1 cause of death for all children ages 1 and higher. If you
believe that the proper use of child restraints is a danger to your
child, then by all means you have the choice not to use them (subject
to traffic violations in some states, of course). I hope anyone
making such a choice studies this topic carefully and personally
accepts the consequences of their actions. At the very least, perhaps
this statistic will make those who shun restraints consider more
carefully their choices on vehicle selection and impaired driving when
kids are onboard.

Incidentally, some usage statistics can be found at the links I
provided. Relevant to this thread on booster laws, this one is given
at one of the links you may have read:

"Booster seats have been shown to decrease injuries for children ages
4 to 8 when compared with seat belt use alone. During 2000, 376
children ages 4 to 8 years died in motor vehicle crashes in the United
States. Of these, 46% were unrestrained and 36% were restrained in a
car seat belt, without a booster seat (NHTSA 2001)."

If I read it correctly, that would seem to indicate that 8% of these
cases were using boosters seats. Plus, some of those 8% using
boosters may not have used them correctly (more than half based on
those we see at local events).

Regards,

Darren

[toto]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 22:27:56 -0700, "bobb" >
wrote:

>Friends of mine in the emergency medical professions have
>seen many infants and children being hospitalized as a direct
>result of restraint systems....

How many of these, however, are a direct result of improper
use of such systems. As with seat belts and shoulder belts
when the restraint is not properly fitted, they can cause injury
As a short woman, the shoulder belt is a problem for me
because it does not stay in the proper position unless I get
special positioners for it.

To use a carseat properly for the best protection for infants
and children:

http://www.child-safety-alerts.com/child-safety-seats.html

Child Safety Seats

Using a child safety seat correctly makes a big difference. A child
safety seat may not protect your child in a crash if it isn't used
correctly and installed properly in your vehicle.

Take a minute to Check To Be Sure......

All Children age 12 and under should ride properly restrained
in the back seat!!!!

Do You Have The Instructions?

* Always read the child seat use and installation instruction
manual. Also, read your vehicle owner manual seat belt and
child seat installation section.

Does Your Child Ride in the Correct Safety Seat?

Infants, from birth to about age 1 and at least 20 pounds should
ride in rear facing safety seats, in the back seat - never in the
front seat where a front mounted passenger air bag is present.

* Harness straps should be at or below the infants shoulders,
and the straps should be snug. When snug only one adult finger
should fit between the child's chest and the harness and the
straps should lie in a relatively straight line without sagging.

* Place the harness retainer clip at armpit level, this helps to
keep the harness straps positioned properly.

* Infants who weigh 20 lbs. or more before 1 year should ride
in a safety seat rated for heavier infants, some convertible seats
are rated up to about 30 pounds rear facing.

Children 1 year and over 20 pounds may ride forward facing in
the back seat

* Children should ride in a safety seat with full harness until
they are 40 pounds.

* Harness straps should be at or above child's shoulders which
means that harness straps should be threaded through the top
slots of the child seat in most cases. Harness should be snug so
that only one adult finger can fit between the child's chest and the
harness and straps should lie in a relatively straight line without
sagging.

* Harness retainer clips, when provided, should be at armpit
level which helps keep the harness straps positioned properly
on the child's shoulders.

Children between 40 -80 pounds should ride in a belt-positioning
booster seat, using the adult lap and shoulder belt, in the back
seat. Booster seats should be used until the adult lap and
shoulder belt fit them properly.

Boosters are just that - they "boost a child up" providing a taller
sitting height so the adult lap and shoulder belt fit

* Most children will not fit the adult lap and shoulder belt alone
until they can sit with their back against the vehicle seat back
cushion with their knees bent over the seat cushion edge and
feet on the floor.

* Boosters should be used as "in between" safety devices for
children who have outgrown a convertible seat at 40 pounds and
the lap and shoulder belt alone, because the adult lap and shoulder
belt typically do not fit a child this size.

* Belt-positioning boosters can only be used with both the lap
and shoulder belt across the child. The shoulder belt should be
snug against the child's chest, resting across the collar bone and
the lap belt should lay low across the child's lap/upper thigh area -
never across the stomach.

****If only a lap belt is available in the rear seating positions, an
option may be to contact the vehicle dealer to see if retrofit
shoulder belts can be installed. Another option may be to install
products which can be used with a lap belt only such as a
speciality-made harness or vest. Contact the Auto Safety Hotline at
(888) 327-4236 for additional information.

Boosters with harness systems, and high-backs are fairly new
products. When used with the harness, these seats are typically
recommended for use by children who weigh between 30 and 40
pounds, after 40 pounds the harness should be removed, converting
to a belt-positioning booster which can be used up to 60-80 pounds.
Belt-positioning boosters are recommended for children who are
not yet physically mature enough to properly fit an adult lap and
shoulder belt.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
Outer Limits

[bobb]

I'm still doing a lot of reading and will withhold comment for the moment.
Both you and Abacus present thoughful and intelligent arguments. I will
admit a long time bias against lap belts and later, the shoulder harness. My
dander really got up when air bags killed and injured more people than than
then number of lives the experts 'estimated' were being saved. With a great
sense of never before seen logic... these same experts suggested passenger
airbags could be disabled... yet in the face of this outstanding logic many
(as reported by the media) were fighting against that option. Most recent
change now calls for slower inflation time and the air bag is to be directed
below the face to prevent blindness. Yes, there are beleivers, and there
are cynics.

Friends of mine in the emergency medical professions have seen many infants
and children being hospitalized as a direct result of restraint systems....
when in all probability the injuries would be of a lessor nature if the
children were not restrained. On the other hand they will also tell of
instnaces where they thought a restraint system really worked but I am
talking about the slow speed crash... the typical fender bender. These are
the most common types of accidents and the most frequent, yet the serious
injury rate seems awfully high. I guess we'd have to have to first agree a
broken arm is less serious than neck and spinal injuries... all of which are
probably due to restraint systems. For these types of injuries the onus in
recent years has been to point fingers at parent's misuse of car seats.

When it was pointed out that the shoulder harness was causing all too many
serious injuries the 'experts' claimed they were due to misuse, too. The
obvious intent of the air bag is to over-come the 'misuse' of the shoulder
harness. What is not often mentiioned is that the suggested 'misuse' often
results in life-long disabling neck and back injuries.. including
parapalgia... which some would gladly exchange for a broken nose or broken
teeth.


To merely look that the worst cases where mortality is a factor distorts the
entire picture. I could suggest in those instances we peak beyond the
intention of any restraint system because they are so many other
contributing factors that are unknown. Medical services in some areas are
really out-standing peform real life-saving techniques... in other areas
victim might well bleed to death or suffer additional injury during
transport to a hospital. In those instances is it really important to know
if a restraint system was effective or not? For statistical purposes the
death is enter on either side of the ledger.

Often given little merit, is the loose cargo carried inside the vehicle at
the time of impact. These become missiles as the car suddenly stops or
changes direction upon impact and death or injury is not dependant upon
restraint systems. Once again, for statiscal purposes, a record is made to
note if a restraint system was in place or not. It could be implied the
cause of death is less important...he died of injuries.

Thanks for the reading materials... and your insights

bobb

[Greg Hanson]

If booster seats work, great! But too many laws like this
are like buying version 1.00 of a computer software package.
California REQUIRED fire retardant chemicals in all furniture.
This crept into stores nationwide.
Firefighters learned that smoke from them was WORSE, more dangerous.
But that was glossed over UNTIL they discovered kids living around
the furniture had minute traces of the harmful chemicals in
their bloodstreams. NOW California is requiring all of those
chemicals to be removed from furniture manufacture.

I for one am really tired of these UNFORESEEN consequences
sneaking up on us all the time.

I could cite numerous examples where somebody comes up with
some bright idea, and knee jerk it into place imposed on
everybody. THEN they realize that they probably should have
tested it out a little more carefully.

A big issue in Child Protection is PREVENTIVE REMOVALS.

I concede that for known threats like MENTAL ILLNESS,
alcoholism and addiction to hard drugs like Meth, that
PREVENTIVE removals are wise. But using that label when
there is no major factor like those, that sort of
Carte Blanche leads to large agency abuses based on whim.

Having only touched a booster maybe twice in my lifetime,
I have a concern that propping the kid up higher in the
car could lead to more torque/leverage applied in an accident.
In other words, while the straps might work better, the
kids life depends EVEN MORE on the straps because of the
jacked up height and center of gravity.
To point out the forces I'm thinking about, magine if
the booster seat jacked the kid up 2 feet higher and
miraculously the straps could still fit perfectly.
The "top heavy" effect exaggerated here is what I'm
concerned with on normal booster seats.
Goes against the ideas of low slung, low to the ground that
usually work to your advantage.

But I wouldn't want this to be applied "knee jerk fashion"
without exhaustive testing.

Unlike a lot of knee jerk political impositions, I reserve
an element of uncertainty.

But I am also quite dismayed about NHTSA deliberately
concealing deadly facts on early SUV's.
For a safety agency to put politics over safety like
that is the worst kind of hypocrisy, that which causes harm.

[[email protected]]

(Kane) wrote:

<snip>
>
> And one more item I noticed that bears comment: children are not
> unaccustomed to being confined. It's a condition of the womb and is
> common in many cultures...

Is this some type of pre-birth experience that you have had. That you
found your 'own' Mother's womb confining? Maybe...it was gas?

<snip>

--
free.

[CPS Darren]

"bobb" > wrote in message >...


> Friends of mine in the emergency medical professions have seen many infants
> and children being hospitalized as a direct result of restraint systems...

Your friends may be interested in this fact sheet from the latest
study on booster use from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia,
available here in PDF Form:

http://www.chop.edu/traumalink/download/2003/pcps_allstate.pdf

The original study was printed in the Journal of the American Medical
Association:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12783914&dopt=Abstract

More images and state breakdowns can be found here:

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=71421

This is a great site with lots of relevant information on the efficacy
of boosters for children. I hope any parent who may consider leaving
their child unrestrained or without a booster will visit these links
to learn more before making their choice.

> Often given little merit, is the loose cargo carried inside the vehicle at
> the time of impact. These become missiles as the car suddenly stops or
> changes direction upon impact and death or injury is not dependant upon
> restraint systems.

Keep in mind that an unrestrained child is also loose cargo, and will
become a missile in the same manner. Unfortunately, this type of
missile does depend upon restraint systems.


Darren
http://www.car-safety.org

[Greg Hanson]

I don't think Bobb is arguing as much that any restraints don't help,
as much as he is arguing like I did, that these things are being
IMPOSED without first being tested. The population is being used as
Guinea Pigs.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> I don't think Bobb is arguing as much that any restraints don't help,
> as much as he is arguing like I did, that these things are being
> IMPOSED without first being tested. The population is being used as
> Guinea Pigs.

Obviously seat belts provide more protection than not using seat belts.

Seat belts with shoulder harnesses provide more protection than seat belts
without harnesses.

And baby car seats provide more protection in the back of the car than the
front.

And baby car seats provide more protection if they are facing the rear.

What's the problem, Greg?

You don't think seat belts were tested to see if they offered more
protection than not using seat belts?

Dan

[Sherman]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I don't think Bobb is arguing as much that any restraints don't help,
> > as much as he is arguing like I did, that these things are being
> > IMPOSED without first being tested. The population is being used as
> > Guinea Pigs.
>
> Obviously seat belts provide more protection than not using seat belts.
>
> Seat belts with shoulder harnesses provide more protection than seat belts
> without harnesses.
>
> And baby car seats provide more protection in the back of the car than the
> front.
>
> And baby car seats provide more protection if they are facing the rear.
>
> What's the problem, Greg?
>
> You don't think seat belts were tested to see if they offered more
> protection than not using seat belts?
>
> Dan
>

Is it relevant if he and his girlfriend no longer have her child around to
transport?

The child cannot be used as a Guinea pig for his brand of "discipline" or
anything else - if she isn't there...

Sherm.
>

[Dan Sullivan]

"Sherman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I don't think Bobb is arguing as much that any restraints don't help,
> > > as much as he is arguing like I did, that these things are being
> > > IMPOSED without first being tested. The population is being used as
> > > Guinea Pigs.
> >
> > Obviously seat belts provide more protection than not using seat belts.
> >
> > Seat belts with shoulder harnesses provide more protection than seat
belts
> > without harnesses.
> >
> > And baby car seats provide more protection in the back of the car than
the
> > front.
> >
> > And baby car seats provide more protection if they are facing the rear.
> >
> > What's the problem, Greg?
> >
> > You don't think seat belts were tested to see if they offered more
> > protection than not using seat belts?
> >
> > Dan
> >
>
> Is it relevant if he and his girlfriend no longer have her child around to
> transport?
>
> The child cannot be used as a Guinea pig for his brand of "discipline" or
> anything else - if she isn't there...
>
> Sherm.

oooOOOOooo Sherm gives Greg's ass a MAJOR snap with a wet towel!

Careful Sherm, he may like it. ;-P

Best, Dan