Why are new cars missing car seat LATCH for rear middle seat????

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 12:39:45 GMT, "Cory Dunkle"
wrote:


"Brandon Sommerville" wrote in message
ws.com...

But what *you* missed was that the OP specified the LATCH system,
which means Lower Anchors and Tethers for CHildren. It's a new
standard that's supposed to make car seats idiot proof, since IIRC
about 80% of them are not installed correctly.

The person I replied to said


"Nope needs a seatbelt that's properly anchored in the car and a teether
anchor.

OP -Solving the problem would be simply using one of the side latches or
getting a middle seat belt installed."


Far was talking about plain old seatbelts being properly anchored.

Fair enough.

My point was that traditional car seats restrained with seatbelts work
fine... There's nothing wrong with them. The error is not in how they are
'attached' to the car, but with people who don't take the time to ensure it
is installed in the car properly. No matter how idiot-proof you make
something there will always be a bigger idiot.

Too true. Kid seats are dead simple to install if you just stop and
think about it, which unfortunately disqualifies a large portion of
the population.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

Thanks... A very informative read.

Cory

"Joanna Kimball" thenospacekimballsatintergatedotcom wrote in message
...
I hate to keep replying to an x-posted topic, but the fact is (and you RAD
readers should be aware of this as well) that while seatbelts don't fail,
child seat installations do, and often. In order for the child seat to
perform within its specifications, it must be angled correctly AND must be
installed incredibly tightly, with almost no ability to move either
front-to-back or side-to-side. Trying to move the childseat laterally
(from
side to side) should rock the car before it moves the seat. Getting it
this
tight with just a seatbelt involves both correct seat selection (the angle
of the bench often doesn't equal the angle of the carseat base, allowing
unacceptable movement), using levelers and pool noodles to get a tight
enough fit, and a lengthy process of pressing down the seat into the bench
(most of us kneel in it) to get optimum tension on the seatbelt straps.
Seatbelts that are not of the locking type also need lockoff clips.

If either of these requirements (angle and tightness) are not met, the
child
will not be protected by the seat, and about 80% of all parent-installed
seats don't meet these requirements. That's the whole reason for the new
LATCH system--it allows parents to have an automatically correct method
for
installing their seats, giving a much better chance that the baby or child
will be protected in a crash. It's also easier on the car--getting a
seatbelt tight enough that there is no lateral movement means that the
seat
"feet" will be constantly pressed into the bench; this can destroy leather
and vinyl and will leave permanent impressions on fabric. Since the LATCH
system relies on its own rigidity to prevent lateral movement, the carseat
does not have to be pressed down as hard.

Telling a parent that using a seatbelt is just as good as the LATCH system
is misleading. IF the seatbelt is absolutely correctly used with the
childseat (and again, very, very few are) it offers good protection, but
LATCH makes this a fairly foolproof process. The really ideal system is a
combination of LATCH and tether anchors (which are often skimped on in
the
middle rear position, like LATCH), allowing miY"Ml excursion of the
carseat
during any type of crash.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

The *problem* is that far too many stupid people are breeding. The
solution has nothing to do with car seats. By the time the stupid
contemplate car seat questions, it's far too late.

Wow you're sick, you know? Judging people like that simply because they
want to drive an SUV?

Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV than in say, a Hyundai Sonata. (My mother was in a
coma for 4 weeks and in the hospital for 6 weeks, with almost a year of
rehab needed, after a crash in a hyundai sonata. She was in the
passenger seat and the car was hit on her side by a GMC Yukon. The
driver of the Yukon received a small bruise on her forehead.)

I agree that they are less stable on the road because their center of
gravity is higher, which is why the lower, more car-sized SUVs are
increasingly popular. They are more stable, or should be in theory.

"Shena Delian O'Brien" wrote in message
news:AyRpb.75660$mZ5.480686@attbi_s54...
Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV than in say, a Hyundai Sonata. (My mother was in a
coma for 4 weeks and in the hospital for 6 weeks, with almost a year of
rehab needed, after a crash in a hyundai sonata. She was in the
passenger seat and the car was hit on her side by a GMC Yukon. The
driver of the Yukon received a small bruise on her forehead.)

By said logic, your mother should have been driving a bus. That way, she
would have been the one with the small bruise and the person in the Yukon in
the hospital.

A vehicle will always do "less well" in an accident if it is the
lighter/smaller vehicle involved. This is a simple matter of physical
dynamics. In point of fact, however, in collisions of like-sized and
weighted vehicles, SUVs tend to fare less well on average than passenger
cars. IOW, if you're in an accident in an SUV with a passenger vehicle,
you'll probably do pretty well (although you may find it rather difficult to
live with the fact that you've decapitated the entire family in the Honda
Civic you ran over). But if you have an accident with another SUV, all bets
are off.

IOW, stop the arms race. When everyone has a big SUV, then people will have
to start getting bigger SUVs to "feel" safer. And then bigger. On and on.
It's already happening. The end game is what? Everyone driving Hummers
and/or buses?
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [20mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Cory Dunkle wrote in message
...
Perhaps you missed where I said that since the late '60s
all cars have been federally mandated to have at least a
lap belt for all passengers and shoulder belts for the driver
and front side passenger. Yes, all these seatbelts are properly
anchored to either the frame or body.

However not all types of seat belts are compatible with child safety
seat use. People need to read both their auto manual and the carseat
manual to make sure the car seat is installed in a safe location and
with a seat belt that will really secure it in the car. From the Graco
Snugride car seat manual, the following types of seatbelts *cannot* be
safely used to restrain a carseat:

"Lap Belts with Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) - This lap belt stays
loose and can move until it locks in a crash or sudden stop.

Combination Lap/Shoulder Belt with Retractor - Each strap has a
retractor at one end and is attached to the latch plate at the other
end.

Passive Restraint - Lap Belt with Motorized Shoulder Belt

Passive Restraint - Lap or Shoulder Belt Mounted on Door

DO NOT use vehicle belts that are attached to the door in any way or
that move along a track to automatically surround the passenger when the
door is closed.

Lap Belts Forward of Seat Crease."

So, even though all cars since the late 60's have to have seatbelts for
all passenger locations, that does not mean you can use them for a
carseat.
--
Cheryl S.
Mom to Julie, 2 yr., 7 mo.
And Jaden, 2 months

Cleaning the house while your children are small is like
shoveling the sidewalk while it's still snowing.

In article AyRpb.75660$mZ5.480686@attbi_s54,
Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:
Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV than in say, a Hyundai Sonata. (My mother was in a
coma for 4 weeks and in the hospital for 6 weeks, with almost a year of
rehab needed, after a crash in a hyundai sonata. She was in the
passenger seat and the car was hit on her side by a GMC Yukon. The
driver of the Yukon received a small bruise on her forehead.)

Regardless of the vehicles involved, being on the crash side of the
"target" vehicle of a T-bone crash is likely to be much worse than
being in the "striking" vehicle, since the crash zone in the door is
much smaller than the crush zone in the front of the vehicle (and
one's head is closer to hard things like the window and door frame
in a T-bone crash than in a frontal crash).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

In article AyRpb.75660$mZ5.480686@attbi_s54, Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:
Daniel J. Stern wrote:

The *problem* is that far too many stupid people are breeding. The
solution has nothing to do with car seats. By the time the stupid
contemplate car seat questions, it's far too late.

Wow you're sick, you know? Judging people like that simply because they
want to drive an SUV?

People are stupid if they buy an SUV for safety. For the cost many big
SUVs one can get a luxury sedan that offers the same or better crash
protection and has active safety abilities.

Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV than in say, a Hyundai Sonata.

And an SUV is far less safe than the full size sedans and station wagons
that were effectively removed from the market by regulations.

(My mother was in a
coma for 4 weeks and in the hospital for 6 weeks, with almost a year of
rehab needed, after a crash in a hyundai sonata. She was in the
passenger seat and the car was hit on her side by a GMC Yukon. The
driver of the Yukon received a small bruise on her forehead.)

My mother in I were in a 1975 Ford Maverick that was hit by a Mack
Conventional Semi-tractor trailer combo (running empty). We walked away.
In fact, before the car was towed, both doors still worked and it was
hit on the passenger side at the seam between the door and fender.

What's my point? Two fold. One is that ancadotes are not really all
that worthwild. Two, the maverick was a small car for the mid 70s, but
about the size of a taurus today and could take a hit from something
alot bigger than Yukon and protect those inside. The reason here is
weight, as the maverick, like a hundai was a low cost car. In 1975
cars could weigh more and use that weight to protect passengers. Also
cost is a big factor in crash protection. A similar sized mercedes, BMW,
etc would protect more. (then again, they pass the CAFE penalty on the
buyers, so the weight for crash protection isn't as big of a factor)

I agree that they are less stable on the road because their center of
gravity is higher, which is why the lower, more car-sized SUVs are
increasingly popular. They are more stable, or should be in theory.

Small SUVs are evolving into the 1980 AMC eagle station wagon and other
passenger cars that were banished by CAFE requirements. The way things
are going we will see something that looks like and functions like one
would imagine a modern version of a 1975 ford country squire station
wagon would be. It will only be regulated as light truck instead of
as a passenger car.

Why is this? Because the cars we used to have are the superior choice.
People chose these vehicles over SUVs for 40 years in the free market.
It was only after CAFE skewed the market in favor of trucks did things
change.

If you want automotive safety, repeal CAFE.

"Brent P" wrote in message
news:0KSpb.106734$e01.367372@attbi_s02...
If you want automotive safety, repeal CAFE.

How about just evening the playing field so that CAFE standards apply to
SUVs and light trucks as well as to sedans. Everything will get lighter.

Incidentally, I challenge your presumption that cars were safer 40 years ago
than they are today. The statistics do not bear out this assumption.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [19mo] mom)

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"Rejuvinate your skin." -- Hydroderm ad

Daddy: You're up with the chickens this morning.
Aurora: No, I'm up with my dolls!

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article 2QSpb.3372$7B2.1230@fed1read04, Circe wrote:
"Brent P" wrote in message
news:0KSpb.106734$e01.367372@attbi_s02...
If you want automotive safety, repeal CAFE.

How about just evening the playing field so that CAFE standards apply to
SUVs and light trucks as well as to sedans. Everything will get lighter.

That is not workable, nor does it lead to safety. All it is, is telling
people what they can drive.

Incidentally, I challenge your presumption that cars were safer 40 years ago
than they are today. The statistics do not bear out this assumption.

I made no such claim. Nor did I mention any 1963 models. (However, by 1973
crash protection standards had addressed the majority of weak points.)
What I claimed was that SUVs are less safe than the classes of vehicles
they replaced. I'll take a 2003 town car (a downsized survivor of the
great CAFE purge) over any of these SUVs for overall safety any day of the
week.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Shena Delian O'Brien wrote:

The *problem* is that far too many stupid people are breeding. The
solution has nothing to do with car seats. By the time the stupid
contemplate car seat questions, it's far too late.

Wow you're sick, you know? Judging people like that simply because they
want to drive an SUV?

Stupid, Shena, is as stupid does. I judge the original poster stupid for
bitching about two child seat anchorages instead of three...in an SUV,
which is demonstrably less safe in all sorts of ways than a passenger car
with comparable passenger space.

Plenty of people drive SUVs because in a crash, you're more likely to
survive in an SUV

Real-world data trump ignorant guesses like this every time. And in the
real world, most car drivers have much better odds than most SUV drivers.

DS