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

Brent P wrote:
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.


Oddly enough... spotted while looking for info on the new NHTSA
rollover ratings earlier today...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in563159.shtml

Not sure if you picked that vehicle on purpose, but your assessment
seems to be spot on.

nate

--
go dry to reply.
http://www.toad.net/~njnagel

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

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.

I know that all the times we've gotten into fender benders with my LSS
or the Intrigue it's all been worse for the wear with the other guy and
slight cosmetic damage for us. Of course, the only time an SUV was
involved it was me rear-ending him, and knocking his bumper off.

Personally, I prefer my cars, even if it does cost an arm and a leg to
fix anything and they came with defective intake manifolds & plenum
which warp and cost us $3500 to fix BECAUSE THE DAMN MANUFACTURER WON'T
PLACE A RECALL.. grr... ok.. vent over. LOL

Circe wrote:

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


It would be impossible to compare safety statistics for 1963 cars and
2003 cars unless you could figure how to adjust the statistics for seat
belt usage, road improvements, differences in driver training,
differences in traffic density, etc., etc., etc.

I will say this, I was in an accident where a 1969 Ford Country Sedan
was struck in the left rear corner by a 1967 Ford Galaxie doing about 55
mph. No one in either car was wearing a seat belt. No one was injured
(including 4 young children). I was able to dive the Station Wagon away,
although it was totaled (bent chassis). The Galaxie's front end was
toast, but the car was repaired. I can only imagine what would happen if
you replaced either car in this scenario with a late model Camry.
Hopefully the air bags and seat belts would be in use and protect the
drivers. I have seen what happens when a Camry hits anything substantial
at highway speeds. It isn't pretty.

Ed

"Brandon Sommerville" wrote in message
s.com...
| On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
| wrote:
|
| Dodge Stratus Sedan/Chrysler Sebring Sedan
| Chevy Malibu
|
| Both have the car seat latch mechanisms for the center backseat
| position...at least in the USA...
|
| But they may not fit all car seats. The most important thing to do is
| to *test* the various combinations before actually buying anything.
| --
| Brandon Sommerville
| remove ".gov" to e-mail
|
| Definition of "Lottery":
| Millions of stupid people contributing
| to make one stupid person look smart.

Good advice. However, it's my understanding that these are being
standardized.

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 19:35:10 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
wrote:


"Brandon Sommerville" wrote in message
ws.com...
| On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 20:23:56 -0500, "James C. Reeves"
| wrote:
|
| Dodge Stratus Sedan/Chrysler Sebring Sedan
| Chevy Malibu
|
| Both have the car seat latch mechanisms for the center backseat
| position...at least in the USA...
|
| But they may not fit all car seats. The most important thing to do is
| to *test* the various combinations before actually buying anything.

Good advice. However, it's my understanding that these are being
standardized.

They *are* standardized, that was the whole point of LATCH.
Unfortunately, real world tests don't bear this out. I can't remember
where I read the article (I've looked for it since) but what I read
indicated that LATCH was far from a perfect solution as there is
enough variation between different auto manufacturers and different
child seat manufacturers to prevent some combinations from working.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

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

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:

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.


I think you'll have a hard time proving this. The NHTSA data is so confusing
as to be almost useless. The IIHS Injury loss ratings indicate that large
SUVs are safer than very large sedans (very large being Crown Victorias and
above). From http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ictl/ictl.htm :

Vehicle Class Injury Loss Rating
(100 = average)
VERY LARGE 4X4 SUV 39
VERY LARGE 4X2 SUV 31
LARGE 4X4 SUV 49
LARGE 4X2 SUV 47
MIDSIZE 4X4 SUV 76
MIDSIZE 4X2 SUV 83
VERY LARGE LUXURY SEDAN 53
LARGE LUXURY SEDAN 59
MIDSIZED LUXURY SEDAN 72
VERY LARGE 4DR SEDANS 57
LARGE 4DR SEDANS 71
MIDSIZE SEDANS 107
LARGE STATION WAGON/
MINI VAN 70
MIDSIZE STATION WAGON 60

So it would seem, you are safer in a very large car than in a mid size SUV,
but not as safe as in a large SUV. However, even the very large sedans (A
Crown Victoria) don't have the ability to carry 7 people like a "midsized"
Explorer does. Large station wagons / mini vans are safer than mid sized
SUVs, but not as safe large SUVs at least accordig to these ratings.

Ed

In article ,
C. E. White wrote:
but not as safe as in a large SUV. However, even the very large sedans (A
Crown Victoria) don't have the ability to carry 7 people like a "midsized"
Explorer does. Large station wagons / mini vans are safer than mid sized
SUVs, but not as safe large SUVs at least accordig to these ratings.

On the other hand, driver death rates listed on
http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fat...ts/passveh.htm
say a different story. There, cargo and large passenger vans (not
including minivans) have a driver death rate of 49 per million registered
passenger vehicles. SUVs do about as well as cars (including minivans)
overall (90 for 2WD SUVs, 66 for 4WD SUVs, and 83 for cars), despite
the SUVs being significantly heavier. However, certain classes of SUVs
and cars do poorly -- mini cars, small cars, and 2WD SUVs between 3501
and 4500 pounds (162, 117, and 105 respectively -- note that the car
sizes in this report are defined by length and wheelbase, not weight
or interior room). Pickups do poorly (126 for 2WD and 115 for 4WD).
Large cars (wheelbase 111-115 inches or length 196-210 inches, which may
include some minivans) do better than all categories of SUVs (58 for the
large cars; best SUV groups are 64), or anything else other than cargo
and large passenger vans.

Of course, driver demographics can have a significant effect on
insurance losses and driver death rates. In some cases, vehicles
that are essentially the same, but have different badges, have greatly
different insurance losses and driver death rates. Sometimes, the
4-door sedan does better than the 2-door coupe, while the station wagon
does even better.

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

(Paula) wrote in message . com...
Hi - just wondering if anyone out there has a vehicle with the car
seat LATCH in the middle seat? Seems like a lot of the auto
manufacturers included a tether hook for the middle seat, but only put
the LATCH anchors on the side seats.

I think this is ridiculous!!!! Isn't it common knowledge that most
parents seat their children in the middle seat because it's the safest
position in the vehicle? What is the point of installing the LATCH
anchors for two of three possible seats? I just don't understand it.

LATCH is going to be a great feature in the future. In 20 years, the
vehicle fleet will have turned over and most autos will have LATCH.
By then, implementation in vehicles and carseats will be much better
than it is today, and many current issues should be resolved.

For now, there are some problems. The center placement issue is a big
one. We know that side impacts are very dangerous, and cause the most
fatalities to properly restrained passengers. Unfortunately, the
mandate did not require specific positions to be outfitted with LATCH.
It DID require at least two LATCH positions for most vehicles.
That's a problem in some smaller models because there isn't enough
room in back to have LATCH in the center plus one of the adjacent
seating positions. In many other vehicles, manufacturers omitted
LATCH from the center position of the rear seat only because of
cost:-(

Another problem is that auto manufacturers and the government did not
have the foresight to require LATCH components to be rated above 40
pounds. This is an increasing problem with child seat models that
have harnesses rated above that weight.

I have been looking at SUVs and the only one I've seen that has a
middle seat LATCH anchor is the Saturn VUE. Does anyone else know if
other car manufacterers are including a middle seat LATCH anchor, or
is this the only one? This is really stupid, because I've heard
stories of some people incorrectly using the side anchors to secure a
child seat in the middle seat position!

For child passenger safety technicians, "Best Practice" indicates that
you should only use LATCH in the center if that spot is a designated
in the vehicle owner's manual as a LATCH seating positon. Otherwise,
both vehicle and child seat owner's manuals must both allow this
exception. Unfortunately, this is only usually the case for some
Britax and Ford models at this time.

There are vehicles that specifically allow center LATCH. Some Ford
models have spaced four anchors such that you may use one carseat in
the center OR two outboard. In these models, you may not use the
center and an outboard simultaneously, because you may not attach two
hooks to the same anchor. A number of larger GM vehicles have 6
anchors in the back seat and allow three seats to use LATCH
simultaneously. There are also some vehicles with no LATCH anchors.
A few of the largest SUVs above 8500 lbs. are exempt from the mandate,
and the manufacturers cut costs and omitted them:-( Some vehicles
with no rear seat are also exempt.

I've heard that some dealers may install a LATCH anchor for you if you
ask (perhaps at a charge). Is this true? I know they will install
tether hooks, but I've never heard of a LATCH achor. Can someone
confirm that they have successfully done this and how much it was?

Some Audi models and the VW Passat since 1999 can have LATCH
retrofitted. In general, this is not possible on other models.

Thanks!
Paula

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

"C. E. White" wrote in message
...


Circe wrote:

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


It would be impossible to compare safety statistics for 1963 cars and
2003 cars unless you could figure how to adjust the statistics for seat
belt usage, road improvements, differences in driver training,
differences in traffic density, etc., etc., etc.

I will say this, I was in an accident where a 1969 Ford Country Sedan
was struck in the left rear corner by a 1967 Ford Galaxie doing about 55
mph. No one in either car was wearing a seat belt. No one was injured
(including 4 young children). I was able to dive the Station Wagon away,
although it was totaled (bent chassis). The Galaxie's front end was
toast, but the car was repaired. I can only imagine what would happen if
you replaced either car in this scenario with a late model Camry.
Hopefully the air bags and seat belts would be in use and protect the
drivers. I have seen what happens when a Camry hits anything substantial
at highway speeds. It isn't pretty.

Anyone curious what a '67 Ford Galaxie (Custom in this case, same car as a
Galaxie only with a cheaper trim and interior package) looks like after
hitting a tree at 65 MPH have a look-see at this...

http://www.ford-registry.com/images/...Meets_Tree.jpg

If I was in my '67 Galaxie (sold last week) and hit that tree at 65 MPH I
would probably have serious injuries, if I survived at all. However, if I
was in my '68 Galaxie I would probably be alright, perhaps some whiplash and
a few cracked ribs at the worst from the rapid deceleration. The difference
between a '67 and a '68 is that in '67 shoulder belts were optional
equipment and thus very rare as well as the steering column being solid. In
'68 shoulder belts for driver and front side passenger were standard, as was
a collapsible steering column. Those two simple devices would in all
likelihood mean the difference between life and death in the accident shown
in that picture.

In the late '60s most of the most significant safety improvements were made
and became standard on cars. Things like dual circuit master cylinders,
shoulder belts, collapsible steering columns and head restraints.

If I had to choose between my modern sub-subcompact econo-box ('86 Honda
Prelude) and my classic cruiser ('68 Ford Galaxie 500 two door hardtop) to
hit that tree at 65 MPH in I would choose the Galaxie in a heartbeat. I
would hate to see her smashed like that but in the Prelude that tree would
in all likelihood be at or past the drivers seat before the car stopped. In
other words *I* would have hit the tree, not just the car.

Cory

In article , Cory Dunkle wrote:

Anyone curious what a '67 Ford Galaxie (Custom in this case, same car as a
Galaxie only with a cheaper trim and interior package) looks like after
hitting a tree at 65 MPH have a look-see at this...

http://www.ford-registry.com/images/...Meets_Tree.jpg

Look at that pic. The passenger compartment is intact. Maybe some intrusion
into the foot wells, but I doubt it as it appears the engine went up and
out instead back through the floor and firewall.

With modern safety features I would say the passengers would fair quite
well. With 1960s lap belts alone they would have been hurt.

If I was in my '67 Galaxie (sold last week) and hit that tree at 65 MPH I
would probably have serious injuries, if I survived at all. However, if I
was in my '68 Galaxie I would probably be alright, perhaps some whiplash and
a few cracked ribs at the worst from the rapid deceleration. The difference
between a '67 and a '68 is that in '67 shoulder belts were optional
equipment and thus very rare as well as the steering column being solid. In
'68 shoulder belts for driver and front side passenger were standard, as was
a collapsible steering column. Those two simple devices would in all
likelihood mean the difference between life and death in the accident shown
in that picture.

Guess I should have read ahead.

But it's evident how well the structure took the crash. Quite good given
the level of knowledge and effort given to such things at the time.

I have and will continue to be a believer that a well designed big car
with modern crash safety features is the best thing to be in with regards
to crash protection.

One thing I notice though, look at that tire. That's a big problem right
there.