I don't get the PPs who allow under 13s to ride in the front seat. Why take the risk when the safety experts (AAP and NHTSA) all advise 13 as the minimum allowable age?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you follow the 13+ rule or something else? I see so many pre-teens in the front seat at drop-off it's shocking!

I drive a 2 door car, so yes, my 10 year old rides in the front for drop off/pick up at school. Otherwise, we'd hold up the line having him climb into/out of the backseat.

Who else gets annoyed with parents that have 2+ kids that they have to get OUT of the car to put in/take out of CAR SEATS in the kiss & ride line??? I mean, COME ON. Park and walk your kids if you're going to keep them in car seats that they can't manage themselves in the kiss and ride line. By the time my son was in kindergarten I made sure he could do his own car seat straps if I was going through the kiss & ride line. He unbuckled as soon as we entered the line & grabbed his backpack so that when the staff or patrol open the door, he can jump out and the line keeps moving. This year I've noticed more and more people getting out of the car to deal with car seats, which used to be discouraged.

Um, I don't think the line would mind if it takes your son an extra 5 seconds if that means he's safer.

Anonymous wrote:Do you follow the 13+ rule or something else? I see so many pre-teens in the front seat at drop-off it's shocking!

I drive a 2 door car, so yes, my 10 year old rides in the front for drop off/pick up at school. Otherwise, we'd hold up the line having him climb into/out of the backseat.

Who else gets annoyed with parents that have 2+ kids that they have to get OUT of the car to put in/take out of CAR SEATS in the kiss & ride line??? I mean, COME ON. Park and walk your kids if you're going to keep them in car seats that they can't manage themselves in the kiss and ride line. By the time my son was in kindergarten I made sure he could do his own car seat straps if I was going through the kiss & ride line. He unbuckled as soon as we entered the line & grabbed his backpack so that when the staff or patrol open the door, he can jump out and the line keeps moving. This year I've noticed more and more people getting out of the car to deal with car seats, which used to be discouraged.

I have a friend who is a doctor. Her husband (not a doctor) lets their 6 year old ride in the front seat in a high-backed booster with seat belt positioner. She doesn't like it, but she hasn't tried to get him to stop. I think it's probably crazy. Definitely not worth it as they only have 2 kids and no reason to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

You are extrapolating and interpreting far more than one can reasonably do with the available data, and you are confusing correlation with causation, a common fallacy. If adults in the back are choosing not to wear seatbelts, that doesn't make the back seat more dangerous for adults.

It also has to do with the lack of seat belt pretensioners in the back seat. And I know the difference between correlation and causation. It's irrelevant since stats are all we have to go by. There is no harm in choosing the statistically safer seat for passengers.

If that's what you believed, you would never have anyone sit in the front passenger seat. DH would drive, and you would ride in the back on date night.

The back seat is only safer for certain riders -- the young, elderly and pregnant. Sometimes even riders in one of these categories MUST sit in front but otherwise why risk it?

It's not true that the back seat is only safer for some riders.

Anonymous wrote:It's against the law in my home state of Washington to ride in front if you're under age 13 unless all rear seating positions are occupied.

Massachusetts is trying to pass the same law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

You are extrapolating and interpreting far more than one can reasonably do with the available data, and you are confusing correlation with causation, a common fallacy. If adults in the back are choosing not to wear seatbelts, that doesn't make the back seat more dangerous for adults.

It also has to do with the lack of seat belt pretensioners in the back seat. And I know the difference between correlation and causation. It's irrelevant since stats are all we have to go by. There is no harm in choosing the statistically safer seat for passengers.

If that's what you believed, you would never have anyone sit in the front passenger seat. DH would drive, and you would ride in the back on date night.

The back seat is only safer for certain riders -- the young, elderly and pregnant. Sometimes even riders in one of these categories MUST sit in front but otherwise why risk it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

You are extrapolating and interpreting far more than one can reasonably do with the available data, and you are confusing correlation with causation, a common fallacy. If adults in the back are choosing not to wear seatbelts, that doesn't make the back seat more dangerous for adults.

It also has to do with the lack of seat belt pretensioners in the back seat. And I know the difference between correlation and causation. It's irrelevant since stats are all we have to go by. There is no harm in choosing the statistically safer seat for passengers.

If that's what you believed, you would never have anyone sit in the front passenger seat. DH would drive, and you would ride in the back on date night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

You are extrapolating and interpreting far more than one can reasonably do with the available data, and you are confusing correlation with causation, a common fallacy. If adults in the back are choosing not to wear seatbelts, that doesn't make the back seat more dangerous for adults.

It also has to do with the lack of seat belt pretensioners in the back seat. And I know the difference between correlation and causation. It's irrelevant since stats are all we have to go by. There is no harm in choosing the statistically safer seat for passengers.

It's against the law in my home state of Washington to ride in front if you're under age 13 unless all rear seating positions are occupied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

You are extrapolating and interpreting far more than one can reasonably do with the available data, and you are confusing correlation with causation, a common fallacy. If adults in the back are choosing not to wear seatbelts, that doesn't make the back seat more dangerous for adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back seat til 13. That front passenger seat is statistically the seat of death.

So then why do you allow it at 13?

Because the stats flip around age 13 or so. And the backseat becomes more dangerous for adults. Fewer wear seat belts in the back and most cars don't have seat belt pretensioners.

All cars are getting safer now with collision avoidancee technology rather than relying on collision worthiness. But I'd still place passengers in the safest seats available.

Anonymous wrote:DH lets our 11-year-old ride up front in his car. The kid is 4'11" so I'm not real cool with it but three kids barely fit in his back seat so I understand why he sticks the oldest up front. When the kids are in my minivan, they all sit in the back.

I would not be OK with letting my 11 yo ride in front just so there wasn't three kids in the rear.

Anonymous wrote:Even if kids are tall, their skeletal structure is not fully developed until about 12-13. That would includes hip bones and sternum, right where the seat belt is grabbing. Statistically, kids under 12 suffer more severe injuries in the front seat. There is more dispersal of impact energy in the back seat than in the front.

This is the best explanation.

From the AAP:

"Several studies have documented the benefits of rear seating for children. Estimates of the elevated risk of injury for children in the front seat compared with children in the rear have ranged from 40% to 70% depending on the time period and characteristics of the group studied. The authors of 1 of these studies specifically noted that the beneficial effects of the rear seat were no longer seen for children 13 years and older. Thus, the AAP continues to recommend that all children younger than 13 years ride in the rear seat."

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