At what age did your kids sit in the front seat of the car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So for those of you with the mentality of "always" in the back - when its just you and your spouse does the non-driver sit in back? That is the safest after all. And it's by far better for your kids to have both of you alive so it's best for them as well if one of you rides in the back

Nice strawman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So for those of you with the mentality of "always" in the back - when its just you and your spouse does the non-driver sit in back? That is the safest after all. And it's by far better for your kids to have both of you alive so it's best for them as well if one of you rides in the back

Nice strawman.

I actually do sit in the back seat if it's just the two of us, you really can't be too careful and it's over over 50% safer even for adults http://blog.esurance.com/safest-seat-in-the-car/#.VO9TlPnF-mE

I ask my husband to do it when I drive but selfishly he won't. This is a real problem between us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've got a 10 year old, 4 year old, and 3 year old. And a toyota prius. Three car seats can be squeezed into the rear seat, but two car seats and a backless booster cannot fit. My oldest DD cannot buckle the seat belt with the other two car seats in place. She is only 55" tall, so she still needs a booster... but she does not fit into a 5-point harness anymore. So she rides in the front seat. I'm not concerned. What bothers me more are the increasing number of people who text while driving. I saw one person in a "big, safe, three rows of seats" minivan nearly mow down a kid in a crosswalk this afternoon. Now that is way more scary to me than the slightly increased risk of injury from sitting in the front seat. Particularly since my daughter walks to school.

I am a CST and I have fit 3 across in the back of a Prius. Did you try and do this yourself of get a CST to do it because I highly doubt they recommended putting the 10yr old in the front with a booster seat. You have to research the seats and boosters to get the right combination. You should also research cars before having a lot of kids but that is another issue for another time.

[Anonymous]

No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So for those of you with the mentality of "always" in the back - when its just you and your spouse does the non-driver sit in back? That is the safest after all. And it's by far better for your kids to have both of you alive so it's best for them as well if one of you rides in the back

No because the spouse is old enough, has mature bones with full density and enough weight that a deployed airbag would help him in an accident and not suffocate or injure him. For kids in the age range of 8-13yrs old, they have growing bones, higher increase of broken and fracture bones and can not withstand the force of an airbag. Car manufacturers had to turn off airbags for weight because of injuries. So now you have kids in the front seat with no airbags or getting hurt from the airbags. Adding a booster to the front seat adds weight to turn an airbag back out for a child not ready to have an airbag deployed in their face.

And honestly why the heck are you arguing for keeping kids in the front. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

Well kids aren't driving at age 13. Their bones and bodies are still growing instead. But go ahead and put them in the front. Take the chance!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

It's not miraculous at all. If you had died in a car wreck, you wouldn't be posting on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

So did you get in a severe car accident without a seat belt in the lap of a parent in the front seat as a child and survived? Because the reasons these laws are in place was to prevent child deaths taking place with out car seats, seat belts, airbags, boosters, sitting in the back that occurred when accident took place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

It's not miraculous at all. If you had died in a car wreck, you wouldn't be posting on DCUM.

The miraculous was sarcasm. Even back then, the odds of dying in a car accident were not to high that it's surprising I lived to comment on it.

And in some states, kids can have farm permits to drive (off-road) as young as 13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So for those of you with the mentality of "always" in the back - when its just you and your spouse does the non-driver sit in back? That is the safest after all. And it's by far better for your kids to have both of you alive so it's best for them as well if one of you rides in the back

yes, it would be safer for everyone (especially children, but even teens and adults) if they sat in the rear seat but, at a certain age, we let teens make the choice to take on added risk by sitting in the front seat, just like when you're 16 you can ride a bike without a helmet or when you're 18 you can smoke a cigarette or when you're 21 you can drink or (now) smoke pot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

So did you get in a severe car accident without a seat belt in the lap of a parent in the front seat as a child and survived? Because the reasons these laws are in place was to prevent child deaths taking place with out car seats, seat belts, airbags, boosters, sitting in the back that occurred when accident took place.

No -- that's my point. Fatal car accidents are simply not that common. (Something like 2/3 of the ones that do occur involve a parent driving drunk.) There is a risk of getting into an accident every time you get in your car, yes. But it's a very small risk; severe collisions are not inevitable.

I understand if people want to gear their kids up for a demolition derby every time they get in the car, that's certainly their prerogative. But I don't like a climate where parents are neglecting their kids or "must not really love them" if they're willing to accept a very small amount of risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No -- that's my point. Fatal car accidents are simply not that common. (Something like 2/3 of the ones that do occur involve a parent driving drunk.) There is a risk of getting into an accident every time you get in your car, yes. But it's a very small risk; severe collisions are not inevitable.

I understand if people want to gear their kids up for a demolition derby every time they get in the car, that's certainly their prerogative. But I don't like a climate where parents are neglecting their kids or "must not really love them" if they're willing to accept a very small amount of risk.

Wearing a seat belt in the back seat is geared up for a demolition derby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

Well there was a family going to Disney a few months ago and the mom had their 4yr old daughter on her lap sleeping in the passenger seat. They both died in an accident and it wasn't even "long ago" If the mom was in a belt and the daughter in car seat in the back, maybe they could type against your "no big deal" comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one wants their child to die in a car accident, obviously. But when did we become so risk-averse that tolerating any risk at all is tantamount to child abuse?

I'm old, and when I was a kid, we didn't even have car seats (or shoulder belts; lap belts were optional). On long car trips, I sat on the lap of whichever parent was in the front passenger seat.

Miraculously, I made it to adulthood. (Except it's really not miraculous, the odds of someone dying in a car accident -- although higher than the odds of a plane crash or a stranger abduction -- are still pretty small.)

Better auto safety (car seats/shoulder belts/airbags/etc.) is a good thing, of course. My baby is rear-facing and my daughter's in a booster. But it seems bizarre to me that a child might have to ride in the back seat until s/he is old enough to drive.

So did you get in a severe car accident without a seat belt in the lap of a parent in the front seat as a child and survived? Because the reasons these laws are in place was to prevent child deaths taking place with out car seats, seat belts, airbags, boosters, sitting in the back that occurred when accident took place.

No -- that's my point. Fatal car accidents are simply not that common. (Something like 2/3 of the ones that do occur involve a parent driving drunk.) There is a risk of getting into an accident every time you get in your car, yes. But it's a very small risk; severe collisions are not inevitable.

I understand if people want to gear their kids up for a demolition derby every time they get in the car, that's certainly their prerogative. But I don't like a climate where parents are neglecting their kids or "must not really love them" if they're willing to accept a very small amount of risk.

So if the chance is so slim in your opinion, why is your child rear-facing in the backseat? That seems more demolition derby than asking a tween to stay in the back buckled? Why not lay your kid down in the car passenger seat or have a family member hold them? That is what was done long ago and you turned out just fine, right? Are you saying you don't want to risk it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can not believe there are people here rationalizing why they put young kids in a front seat and either those same people or others getting defensive with sarcastic comments. It just shows how uneducated and ignorant people can be. Instead of opening their eyes, they just turn their heads with an eye-roll.

I think this thread is an eye-opener. Why not keep your kid safe in a car? I just don't get it.

I will explain it to you. It's because they don't want to seem "uncool", they don't want to do something their kids' friends might consider "uncool", and they don't want to say no.