In crashes, infant car seats ‘failed disastrously’

[Roon]

ASPEN HILL, Md. - When parents buy an infant seat for their car, most believe they are purchasing a product that will keep their child protected from harm in case of an accident.

Surprisingly — and disturbingly — many of these parents are wrong.

Consumer Reports tested 12 infant car seats. Nine performed poorly.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16473196/

[mike_c]

1. OK, before anyone gets all worked up about this report...

...please note that the means for arriving at the reported conclusion were not given. Were they comparing the car seats' performance to their expectations or were they comparing them to a control group who had NO seats? Only the latter comparison could justify the conclusion in the OP headline, IMO. If a car seat provides no more protection than an infant riding without a car seat, then it is a failure. Otherwise, it is a success-- unless the standard of performance is set somewhere else and an appropriate control group was tested for comparison.

[Dastard Stepchild]

2. Thanks... and here is the Consumer Reports link..

talking about the actual tests.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/babies-kids/child-car-booster-seats/car-seats-2-07/overview/0207_seats_ov.htm

[mike_c]

4. wow, that's really disappointing....

No mean failure rates.

No confidence interval or standard error for the mean failure rates.

No indication of how many tests were performed (other than "multiple").

No control group comparisons (how was "failure" defined?).

If one of my undergrads turned in work like this I'd fail them. Seriously.

[MikeDuffy]

5. Isn't the kind of analysis you are suggesting be done

more appropriate at the quality control section of the product manufacturer?

[LeftyMom]

6. More DOT and the CPSC

TransportCanada does similar testing for Canucks, who get a more limited lineup of carseats and have some different regulations on use, for example requiring tethering of all forward facing seats and forbidding use of a belt positioning booster in children below 40 lbs while US regulations permit them at 30 lbs.

Most carseat manufacturers actually don't do their own testing and only do the federally mandated tests. As far as I know, Britax is the only US company that has a test sled of their own. I believe Recaro and SafeGuard do testing beyond federal requirements as well, but don't quote me on that as I'm not positive (though Recaro's models with Euro market analogs, such as the Start, have obviously had at least EU level testing, though the featured models might have slightly different features and instructions. For example, the Start can be used forward facing from 9 mos in European markets, which isn't considered safe here due to escalated risk of spinal injury.)

[mike_c]

7. sure, but they're not the ones publishing this article....

I mean, that's the issue here-- the authors acknowledge that the seats meet the mandated tests, but then they go beyond those tests without proper statistical analyses and subequently condemn the manufacturers. By raising the bar they obligate themselves to doing a proper analysis, IMO. If I was buying any of those car seats my first question would be "what are the conditions under which I can have 95 percent confidence (or higher) that the seat would provide more protection than would be provided to an unprotected child." That's the bottom line, IMO. This article does not provide it.

[MikeDuffy]

14. Isn't it impractical (too expensive,etc) for CU to purchase enough samples

to do the statistical analysis you are suggesting? If it had been a particular make of car that CU had rated poorly, would you make the same kind of argument as with child car seats?

[LostinVA]

16. Yes it is, and CU does an excellent job in their tests

[aikoaiko]

15. In all fairness to CR, its not written for scientists -- but rather for the literate public.

They modus operandi is to describe what they do and report results categorically.

I too wish they would report more details and data, but space is limited and they are trying to reach as many people as possible. FWIW, they hardly ever lose lawsuits or retract the substance of what they publish.


eta: The print articles often give more details, though not to the degree that would satisfy you.

[LeftyMom]

3. Hmm, I wish the'd tested the Britax BabySafe

If I had another kid, that's the one I'd probably get.

I'm not so surprised about the Cosco and Evenflo seats, they've never really made good infant seats. Cosco makes a decent convertible, and the Evenflo Triumph isn't a bad seat provided your kids run really small, and their boosters are okay, though small again.

One can avoid the whole infant seat separating from base issue by using a rear-facing convertible. Most kids will fit one from birth, and some come with special infant supports.

Just to clarify something in the article: The least protected child goes in the most protected position. So if you've got two kids, one in a car seat and one old enough to use a booster or just a seat belt, the older kid is safer in the center and the kid with the added protection of the car seat goes in an outboard seating position, unless you have wonky seatbelts or something that make that impossible.

[Rosemary2205]

9. This thoughtful reply plus info in the OP earned my Recommend. nt

[Horse with no Name]

11. Me too

I like the Britax. You can tell by it's construction when side-by-side the Coscos and Evenflos that it is a much better seat. Of course it is a little pricier...but I'd be willing to pay it.

[loudestchick]

8. Yet another excuse irresponsible adults will use to justify "free range" children.

Everytime I see an unrestrained child in a car I wish I could disable them and call for a citizen's arrest. I know that a quality car seat can be expensive, but there are lots of organizations who give them away in an effort to reduce traumatic injury to children.

[seabeyond]

10. an yet another study to contradicts those that want to insist on something that

isnt true if only to have another law that is dictating to people, so then those supporters can call the parent irresponsible.
btw.... i used the car seat with all the enthusiasm as all the other parents. but i am not blinded to the armor they do not give the young.

how about keeping the car seat law and thru the study know that we cannot protect our children from all things. our reality.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Exactly.

We shouldn't expect them to be safer than any other person properly buckled in a car.
If nothing else...at least unbuckled kids won't become projectiles in an accident.
That makes them worth their weight in gold.

[loudestchick]

13. Did I mistype? Did I suggest that I have actually done the things I contemplate?

No. I did not. It is the law in my state that children must be restrained in an approved car seat. Because seat belts and car seats save lives. Period. They save lives. Infants and toddlers are unable to secure themselves in a vehicle...it is the responsibility of the adult operating the vehicle to do so. Yep, responsibility. There are lots of things that adults are negligent about in regards to their children...some of them have legal penalties attached. Don't feed your children? Don't educate them? Don't see to their medical needs? negligence. Allow your child to be at home by him/herself? Should these things only be enforceable after the child is killed in a home fire begun by turning on the stove? Or once they're dead from malnutrition?

Adults who choose to ignore the information about seat belts? Bah! Adults who willfully neglect the safety of their children because a car seat is inconvenient? Yeah, I believe society should be doing some dictating.

Additional car seat problems? -- the shoddy and inadequate nature of inexpensive car seats
--the problems parents encounter in trying to install them properly.