Age for front seat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about height/weight although that is part of the belt fitting correctly. The front seat shouldn’t be for children under 13 because their bone density is not as strong/developed. The front seats are more dangerous than the backseat in an accident so wait as long as you can. Car seat tech.

I guess my larger point is that if we are THIS concerned about safety in cars, why do we let 16 year olds drive? Their bone formation isn’t complete until age 25. If it is THAT important, maybe rental car companies are correct in waiting until 25 to put kids in driver’s seats. It is just a nebulous line in the sand to say that 13 is a magic age, when ossification isn’t complete until age 25. So, to those who are letting kids drive at 15.5, you are still taking risks just as the 12 year old in a front seat is taking risks. Up to you and your risk taking comfort level.

[Anonymous]

Op here. My son isn't puny but he was one of the last amongst his friends in a booster and it seems like 3-4 of his buddies started in the front seat by 4th grade. And so he feels weird about it. I'm surprised because 2 of the moms are very safety minded and overprotective in some ways. Their kids are maybe 2 inches taller than mine. So that's why I asked. But the bone age thing makes sense to me so I'm thinking I'm just going to have to make him buck up for a couple more years.

[Anonymous]

DS is 10 and in 5th grade. None of his friends run in the front seat. One of his friends still uses a booster seat, he is is really small. It has not been a question.

Obviously every parent has to do what they feel is right but my kid is staying in the back seat for a while. I am hoping until he is 13. He is in the 95th percentile for height so I would guess that he will be tall enough soon enough but it is not a simple matter of height.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about height/weight although that is part of the belt fitting correctly. The front seat shouldn’t be for children under 13 because their bone density is not as strong/developed. The front seats are more dangerous than the backseat in an accident so wait as long as you can. Car seat tech.

I guess my larger point is that if we are THIS concerned about safety in cars, why do we let 16 year olds drive? Their bone formation isn’t complete until age 25. If it is THAT important, maybe rental car companies are correct in waiting until 25 to put kids in driver’s seats. It is just a nebulous line in the sand to say that 13 is a magic age, when ossification isn’t complete until age 25. So, to those who are letting kids drive at 15.5, you are still taking risks just as the 12 year old in a front seat is taking risks. Up to you and your risk taking comfort level.

Sorry, this is really, really stupid. There are all sorts of factors here. It would also be safer if every passenger in the car was rear-facing. If we are THIS concerned, why don't we design all cars that way?

[Anonymous]

The recommendation was 12 when I was growing up, and I’m 45.

My 13 yo still sits in the back, and he’s 5’10”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about height/weight although that is part of the belt fitting correctly. The front seat shouldn’t be for children under 13 because their bone density is not as strong/developed. The front seats are more dangerous than the backseat in an accident so wait as long as you can. Car seat tech.

I guess my larger point is that if we are THIS concerned about safety in cars, why do we let 16 year olds drive? Their bone formation isn’t complete until age 25. If it is THAT important, maybe rental car companies are correct in waiting until 25 to put kids in driver’s seats. It is just a nebulous line in the sand to say that 13 is a magic age, when ossification isn’t complete until age 25. So, to those who are letting kids drive at 15.5, you are still taking risks just as the 12 year old in a front seat is taking risks. Up to you and your risk taking comfort level.

Sorry, this is really, really stupid. There are all sorts of factors here. It would also be safer if every passenger in the car was rear-facing. If we are THIS concerned, why don't we design all cars that way?

Exactly my point. There is a line where we all accept the risk. I guess for some it is 15.5 or 13 or 11, but at some point there is just assumed risk when you our your kid sits in the front. The bone ossification thing sounds scientific, but is still just assumed risk because the bones aren’t ossified until 25. The posters who are saying “later is better” are just accepting a slightly different risk level. You can think that is really really stupid, but it is the reality.

My guess, is that when cars are safe and self-driving we will all be encouraged to ride in the back or sitting backwards.

[Anonymous]

My daughter is almost 13 and she rides in the back unless other seats are occupied. She rides in the front seat with my husband. I know two people, one a close relative, who died in that seat when the driver walked away from the crash so that influences my thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not about height/weight although that is part of the belt fitting correctly. The front seat shouldn’t be for children under 13 because their bone density is not as strong/developed. The front seats are more dangerous than the backseat in an accident so wait as long as you can. Car seat tech.

I guess my larger point is that if we are THIS concerned about safety in cars, why do we let 16 year olds drive? Their bone formation isn’t complete until age 25. If it is THAT important, maybe rental car companies are correct in waiting until 25 to put kids in driver’s seats. It is just a nebulous line in the sand to say that 13 is a magic age, when ossification isn’t complete until age 25. So, to those who are letting kids drive at 15.5, you are still taking risks just as the 12 year old in a front seat is taking risks. Up to you and your risk taking comfort level.

Sorry, this is really, really stupid. There are all sorts of factors here. It would also be safer if every passenger in the car was rear-facing. If we are THIS concerned, why don't we design all cars that way?

Exactly my point. There is a line where we all accept the risk. I guess for some it is 15.5 or 13 or 11, but at some point there is just assumed risk when you our your kid sits in the front. The bone ossification thing sounds scientific, but is still just assumed risk because the bones aren’t ossified until 25. The posters who are saying “later is better” are just accepting a slightly different risk level. You can think that is really really stupid, but it is the reality.

My guess, is that when cars are safe and self-driving we will all be encouraged to ride in the back or sitting backwards.

Well it sounds like you don't think there's anything about age 13 which would make that point in time reasonable for most people to have someone sit in the front seat, as opposed to age 11. If that's your opinion, great. Government agencies, scientists, basically mature adult people can take in all of the relevant factors and do a benefit cost analysis and come up with something reasonable and workable despite the existing risk. (Breaking news, there is risk sitting in the front seat if you are a 6 ft 200 lb man. And there are some 17-year-olds who could make better decisions when voting than 18 year olds!!! ) You don't have to abide by it.