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?

Anonymous wrote:height is important for seat belt fit, especially proper placement of the shoulder strap. age is important for bone density and 13 is now considered the minimum safe age (used to be 12). therefore, to safely occupy the front seat the passenger must be at least 13 years of age and be tall enough so the shoulder restraint is properly positioned across the chest and over the center of the shoulder.

No one is allowed to have 4 kids anymore! Make it a law!

^^ sorry. Here is the source: http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/ofhs/prevention/CPS/faqs.htm


Also the "under 13" must be understood in the context of the whole FAQ in the link. Obviously a baby is not allowed in front.

height is important for seat belt fit, especially proper placement of the shoulder strap. age is important for bone density and 13 is now considered the minimum safe age (used to be 12). therefore, to safely occupy the front seat the passenger must be at least 13 years of age and be tall enough so the shoulder restraint is properly positioned across the chest and over the center of the shoulder.

Virginia says "It is safest for all children younger than 13 years of age should be restrained in the rear seats of vehicles for optimal protection. In some instances there are not enough seating positions for every child occupant and it is unavoidable to put a child under the age of 13 in the front seat. If this is the case, there are a few options to improve the safety of that child. If the air bag has an on/off switch, turn it off, slide the vehicle seat back as far as possible from the dash, and make sure the child sitting in the front seat is safely restrained by a child safety seat, booster seat, or seat belt. Virginia Law does not prohibit children from riding in the front seat of a vehicle unless the child is secured in a rear-facing safety seat."

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.

And this is prior to having a class scheduled. As soon as the class was scheduled, they moved up front to start giving me directions, point out signs, observe the wildlife and people in the area, etc. If the kids didn't have a problem with it (and one wanted to stay in the back seat until he started on the road training, so yes, I'm sure I know what they wanted...), I don't see what your issue is.

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.

I went more by height and weight. However, if it were a kid other than mine, I'd clear it with parents first.

Bone density doesn't change dramatically overnight from a 12 year 11 month kid and a 13 year 0 month kid.

I thought it was 12 too, plus minimum height & weight.

I let my 12 year old when he crossed over five feet and 100 lbs.

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.

Ask the parent first. I was allowed to ride in front at 12 (25 years ago), but I wouldn't just stick someone's kid up there.

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.

I think the idea of waiting until you can practically drive a car to be allowed to be the passenger might be a little bit too paranoid for me, but to play devil's advocate, I thought the age thing had to do with bone density being able to handle impact, which is independent of size?

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.

Mommies love to obsess over these sorts of rules, and they simultaneously ignore the one major factor that nobody wants to acknowledge: what kind of car are we talking about?

Expedition? Put your six-year-old up there. Minivan? An eight-year-old would statistically be about the same. Prius/Fit? Be a little more careful.

Why do we always talk about car seats, convertible seats, rear facing until 1 or 2 or 3, booster seats; all the while ignoring the height and size of the car?