How strict are you with 13+ requirement for front seat?

[Anonymous]

My kid is 11, 5'5" and heavy enough that the airbag indicator turns on when he sits in the seat, so I let him sit where he wants. He's almost as big as I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kid is 11, 5'5" and heavy enough that the airbag indicator turns on when he sits in the seat, so I let him sit where he wants. He's almost as big as I am.

The back seat is safer for everyone so why not keep kids in back at least until 13?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is 11, 5'5" and heavy enough that the airbag indicator turns on when he sits in the seat, so I let him sit where he wants. He's almost as big as I am.

The back seat is safer for everyone so why not keep kids in back at least until 13?

Do you sit in the back seat when your spouse drives? I mean, its safer after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH needs to drive 4 kids all under age 13. Oldest is 12 but not our child...

It's not a requirement in MD. It's a "suggestion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I know what can happen when a child's ribcage is crushed by an airbag, teens don't sit in the front seat until they are learning to drive unless there isn't enough room in the back. Even with lack of room, I still wouldn't have a child under 13 in the front, or a teen who didn't meet the minimum recommended height and weight.

Boy, terrible idea, helicopter parent! You learn a lot about driving by sitting in the FRONT!

Actually, no, you learn by watching, and my teens noticed things better sitting in the passenger side back seat where they could see my feet, my hands, the dash and the road.

because
you
can't
see
those
areas
from
the
front
seat?

what? no peripheral vision?

wtf?

[Anonymous]

I currently allow my kids (ages 11 and 12) to sit in the front seat if we are not going to be on the highway. On the highway they still must be in the backseat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I know what can happen when a child's ribcage is crushed by an airbag, teens don't sit in the front seat until they are learning to drive unless there isn't enough room in the back. Even with lack of room, I still wouldn't have a child under 13 in the front, or a teen who didn't meet the minimum recommended height and weight.

Boy, terrible idea, helicopter parent! You learn a lot about driving by sitting in the FRONT!

Actually, no, you learn by watching, and my teens noticed things better sitting in the passenger side back seat where they could see my feet, my hands, the dash and the road.

because
you
can't
see
those
areas
from
the
front
seat?

what? no peripheral vision?

wtf?

Exactly. And in most cars, you don't have much of a view of the driver's seat from the back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always thought age limits were ridiculous - it should be based solely on weight and height. Same with the whole rear-facing infant seats. The recommendation is rear-facing until age 2, but our kids were always far too big to remain rear-facing after about a year. They were just big babies and it made no sense to try and squeeze them in backwards, so we turned them around at that point. Age means nothing - it's size that is important.

Actually age is very relevant. For example, even one-year-olds who are the size of two-year-olds still have the loose ligaments of one-year-olds.

"This best practice [of rear-facing until two] results from the need to support the young child's posterior torso, neck, head, and pelvis and to distribute crash forces over the entire body. Developmental considerations, including incomplete vertebral ossification, more horizontally oriented spinal facet joints, and excessive ligamentous laxity put young children at risk of head and spinal cord injury. Rear-facing CSSs address this risk by supporting the child's head and preventing the relatively large head from moving independently of the proportionately smaller neck."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/e1050.full

Sorry, if my 12-18 mo. old is too large to fit in a rear-facing seat (i.e. his legs are smashed up against the back of the seat), then it's not safe to force him into it simply because of an age requirement. It's safer to put him in a seat that is adequate for his size and strap him in accordingly.

I'd much rather my 12 month old have a broken leg than a broken neck. Your child's legs being folded don't mean he/she is too large to rear face.

FWIW, I turned my 97% for height child at just over 3 and she begged to be turned back as her legs were dangling facing forward and she hates it still over a year and a half later.

[Anonymous]

My 6 year old rides in the front seat, so.... I guess not very strict.

[Anonymous]

I never let my kids ride in the front seat..for safety issues but also, they drive me bananas in the front passenger seat - touching all the buttons, opening window etc.

Plus I like to put all my stuff (purse, coat, mail) on that seat.

So I never deviate from the rule. My husband lets our 11 year old ride up front on a regular basis though.

[Anonymous]

I had my 7th grader ride in the front seat last year after we dropped off his brother. He barely weighted 80 pounds. every now and then I told him to shift his weight around when the airbag light went off. He claimed he was passing gas and floating!

My biggest pet peeve was when he sat on his hands. (started with cold mornings). I told him hands need to be free to cover your face in a crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the risk in the front seat for a 10-year-old, for example?

Is it:

A. Front seat passengers in general are more likely to be injured than rear-seat passengers
B. Airbag deployment can hurt them
C. something else?

For A, that means no one, not even adults, should ride in the front passenger seat unless absolutely necessary.

For B, what about cars with multi-stage airbags that sense the weight and adjust deployment appropriately? Also, what about side airbags for rear seat passengers?

Rear airbags are a different scenario, they deploy from the side, making the probability of crushing the ribcage much lower. Yes airbags are great for adults. But kids' ossify and fuse slowly, and while that makes it easier (and it takes less time) for them heal broken bones, it means that direct pressure can break bones more easily. I would rather not have my child's ribs break and puncture a lung, thanks, so I'll keep them in the back as long as I can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I know what can happen when a child's ribcage is crushed by an airbag, teens don't sit in the front seat until they are learning to drive unless there isn't enough room in the back. Even with lack of room, I still wouldn't have a child under 13 in the front, or a teen who didn't meet the minimum recommended height and weight.

Boy, terrible idea, helicopter parent! You learn a lot about driving by sitting in the FRONT!

Actually, no, you learn by watching, and my teens noticed things better sitting in the passenger side back seat where they could see my feet, my hands, the dash and the road.

because
you
can't
see
those
areas
from
the
front
seat?

what? no peripheral vision?

wtf?

Actually, no, they can't see my feet as well. And since they learn to drive both automatic and manual, I want them to see the difference.