Car seat in front seat?

Arciphel

Well... you see when you post on a public messageboard, unfortunately people are going to give their opinion.... that's kind of what it is for.

If you wanted a legal definition you should maybe have read the rules of the road, or asked in your local garda station, or consulted a solicitor.

But I suppose, as somebody else said earlier in this thread,

"There is no point in debating it further with you as you are clearly unwilling to respect my opinion as I have yours."

dublinlady

[

But I suppose, as somebody else said earlier in this thread,

"There is no point in debating it further with you as you are clearly unwilling to respect my opinion as I have yours."[

Freedom of speech does not = manners

cbyrd

As the law stands at the moment there is no law governing the use of a car seat in the front of the car with or without an airbag. The insurance companies and the carseat manufacturers are the only ones who say to disable the airbag not the guards or the lawmakers.

You are only obliged by law to have a car seat and proper restraints for passengers that are up to EU standards.

There are currently no points or fines for carrying a rearfacing car seat in the front seat. One of the points in the new law being discussed is on just making sure the airbag is disabled. I'm open to being corrected but i remember reading in the paper a few weeks ago that the law is going to change.. trying to locate the article but not having much luck..will post it if i find it

Hannibal Smith

Arciphel wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Young infants have only been put in the back since passenger airbags started being installed on cars.

????? :rolleyes:

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

Before that it was very much the norm to have an infant in the passenger seat. I remember all my infant relatives in their car seats in the front. My recollection is that it only stopped because passenger airbags were introduced.

It was the norm to have kids jumping around the car with no seatbelts on as well, or standing up between the two front seats - will we go back to those days?

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

To be fair, its a big leap, and a bit over the top to make judgement calls on whether the OP couldn't give a monkeys about anyone else on the road just because she wants her infant where they can be seen. Do you never check your speed/petrol etc while driving?

That is quite a leap there alright - checking my speed is the same as having a small child next to me in the front seat. I don't think for s econd that the OP doesn't give a monkeys, quite the opposite, she is trying to do the right thing by her child and that is natural, however I think that by looking at the proc and cons somebody would realise that the safest thing for everyone (child, parent and other road users) in the long term is to have the child in the back of the car. That's all I am saying.

Ah the eye roll....the last ditch attempt of the witless.

The safest thing, in your opinion, nothing more.

And I had actually predicted you might use the non seat belt days lol. Again big leaps for no reason.

Having the child in the back or the front makes no difference, once they start gagging/screaming, the distractions are still there.

Arciphel

Hey Hannibal,

Criticise the post, not the poster.

I think it does make a difference whether they are in the front vs the back, because if they are in the back you have to stop your vehicle before you go and soothe them, so it is much safer for everybody - you, your child, and everyone else on the road. That's all I am saying. I don't think this is just my opinion, it seems to be the opinion of a good few people on here, as well as most of the regulatory bodies who study such things and know a lot more about this kind of thing than you or I. They don't make up these things or say them for fun. Do you know something that they don't?

Arciphel

BTW, I am not trying to offend anyone in this thread, I am genuinely interested in this and I think the fact that the law is at the moment still vague in this area and people have so many strong views makes the discussion very worthwhile.

cbyrd

http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Safety%20for%20kids/Child%20Safety%20in%20Cars%20English.pdf

I stand corrected..;) but as far as i know if you are stopped at a checkpoint there aren't points or fines yet and this is what the new law will deal with..

Arciphel

Thanks for posting that cbyrd, I read it but it actually doesn't solve the argument we are having in this thread. The only bit I see that might is where be relevant is where it says "If it is not possible to place your child in the back seat of your vehicle, they can ride in the passenger seat, as long as they are using the appropriate restraints."

But then it says:

"Can a child sit in the front seat of a vehicle?

Any child under 150cms or weighing less than 36kg must be restrained in a child restraint which is appropriate for their height and weight. The safest place for a child to sit is in the back seat of the car, in the appropriate child restraint, however this is not always possible. It is safe and legal for a child of any age to sit in the front passenger seat of a car provided they are using the correct child restraint for their height and weight. However, if you are transporting a baby in a rearward facing child restraint in the front passenger seat you should disable the front passenger air bag. Please leave the air bag active for all other child restraints."

So does that mean if a Gaurd stops you and you have the child in the front, but there is nothing stopping you having them in the back but personal preference, that you are breaking the law? Very confusing.

Hannibal Smith

Arciphel wrote: »

Hey Hannibal,

Criticise the post, not the poster.

I think it does make a difference whether they are in the front vs the back, because if they are in the back you have to stop your vehicle before you go and soothe them, so it is much safer for everybody - you, your child, and everyone else on the road. That's all I am saying. I don't think this is just my opinion, it seems to be the opinion of a good few people on here, as well as most of the regulatory bodies who study such things and know a lot more about this kind of thing than you or I. They don't make up these things or say them for fun. Do you know something that they don't?

You have to stop your car either way, you have the distraction of a screaming baby either way. Where the baby is situated in the car is academic

Arciphel

But do you not think the strong temptation is there to try and deal with the child (in an emergency) immediately before you bring the car to a stop? Seriously now.

Arciphel

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The safest thing, in your opinion, nothing more.

According AA Motoring Trust, "Ensuring a child is properly restrained in a child car seat can reduce injuries by a factor of 90-95% for rear facing seats and 60% for forward facing seats"

Source: RSA website: http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/No-Child-Car-Seat---No-Excuse/The-Law/

Hannibal Smith

Arciphel wrote: »

But do you not think the strong temptation is there to try and deal with the child (in an emergency) immediately before you bring the car to a stop? Seriously now.

If it was an emergency? I'd stop my car as soon as I could and get the kid out...the benefit being...the baby is just beside me, as opposed to in the back. Do you think anyone would give mouth to mouth has they're flying along the motor way?

Hannibal Smith

Arciphel wrote: »

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

The safest thing, in your opinion, nothing more.

According AA Motoring Trust, "Ensuring a child is properly restrained in a child car seat can reduce injuries by a factor of 90-95% for rear facing seats and 60% for forward facing seats"

Source: RSA website: http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/No-Child-Car-Seat---No-Excuse/The-Law/

Rear facing seats....not back seats lol

dublinlady

Arciphel wrote: »

But do you not think the strong temptation is there to try and deal with the child (in an emergency) immediately before you bring the car to a stop? Seriously now.

Quite frankly no. As a driver I would not be so daft as to think crashing my car would help my choking child - my protective instinct would urge me to safety which would involve pulling over as safely and quickly as possible so that I could help my child. The reason I want her in the front is so that I can differentiate between an emergency and nothing - my child often sounds like age us struggling when she is not. In the front I can prevent myself having to do an emergency pull over. She also has a short temperament and roars and screams and becomes hysterical when she cannot see me - this would be heart wrenching and extremely distracting to me as a driver - to the point where I did not drive at all until I resolved this issue which I now feel I have - by placing her safely in the front .

I'm not altogether convinced that you are not arguing for the sake of it. Either way you need to realise that your coming across as arrogant and forceful with your opinions - treating them as fact where they are not.

Arciphel

Hannibal Smith wrote: »

If it was an emergency? I'd stop my car as soon as I could and get the kid out...the benefit being...the baby is just beside me, as opposed to in the back. Do you think anyone would give mouth to mouth has they're flying along the motor way?

Come on now, that's not what I mean and you know it.

Arciphel

dublinlady wrote: »

Quite frankly no. As a driver I would not be so daft as to think crashing my car would help my choking child - my protective instinct would urge me to safety which would involve pulling over as safely and quickly as possible so that I could help my child. The reason I want her in the front is so that I can differentiate between an emergency and nothing - my child often sounds like age us struggling when she is not. In the front I can prevent myself having to do an emergency pull over. She also has a short temperament and roars and screams and becomes hysterical when she cannot see me - this would be heart wrenching and extremely distracting to me as a driver - to the point where I did not drive at all until I resolved this issue which I now feel I have - by placing her safely in the front .

I'm not altogether convinced that you are not arguing for the sake of it. Either way you need to realise that your coming across as arrogant and forceful with your opinions - treating them as fact where they are not.

I give up, I'm out.

leeomurchu

Looking at it form a different angle the airbags are predominantly in the front of the car so would it not be the case that this is the safest place to have your child as the front of a car is designed for safety during a crash unlike the rear it.

In saying that though, personally I wouldn't have my child in the front seat as it would clearly be a distraction and despite you saying you wouldn't tend to your child and it being no more distracting than the radio you must feel that deep down if your child is vomiting or choking your natural reaction is to immediately tend to them sacrificing all regard for the road and others who may be on it.

I see both sides of the argument and of course you're doing it for convenience I don't know a soul who enjoys pulling off the road every time their child starts gagging or crying and sure doing this could be a hazard as well not to mention turning a half hour journey into and hour one.

At the end of the day it's your decision most new cars have a switch for disabling the passenger airbag usually switched with the drivers key, however if your car doesn't have this option I doubt it would be legal to manually disconnect the airbag by pulling the fuse or other means. I also wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a baby up front without having an isofix seat and base at the minimum.

I think you'd your mind made up either way and so all the arguments are null and void really, hopefully you've no problems going down this road but for me it'd be an unnecessary distraction and one I wouldn't be doing.

dublinlady

leeomurchu wrote: »

Looking at it form a different angle the airbags are predominantly in the front of the car so would it not be the case that this is the safest place to have your child as the front of a car is designed for safety during a crash unlike the rear it.

In saying that though, personally I wouldn't have my child in the front seat as it would clearly be a distraction and despite you saying you wouldn't tend to your child and it being no more distracting than the radio you must feel that deep down if your child is vomiting or choking your natural reaction is to immediately tend to them sacrificing all regard for the road and others who may be on it.

I see both sides of the argument and of course you're doing it for convenience I don't know a soul who enjoys pulling off the road every time their child starts gagging or crying and sure doing this could be a hazard as well not to mention turning a half hour journey into and hour one.

At the end of the day it's your decision most new cars have a switch for disabling the passenger airbag usually switched with the drivers key, however if your car doesn't have this option I doubt it would be legal to manually disconnect the airbag by pulling the fuse or other means. I also wouldn't feel comfortable carrying a baby up front without having an isofix seat and base at the minimum.

I think you'd your mind made up either way and so all the arguments are null and void really, hopefully you've no problems going down this road but for me it'd be an unnecessary distraction and one I wouldn't be doing.

Your right I have decided - but thanks for your opinion , yeah I rang the car garage and was shown how to disable simply with the key. I have installed the isofix base.
It's not laziness that has motivated my decision - its safety

cbyrd

Arciphel wrote: »

Hey Hannibal,

Criticise the post, not the poster.

I think it does make a difference whether they are in the front vs the back, because if they are in the back you have to stop your vehicle before you go and soothe them, so it is much safer for everybody - you, your child, and everyone else on the road. That's all I am saying. I don't think this is just my opinion, it seems to be the opinion of a good few people on here, as well as most of the regulatory bodies who study such things and know a lot more about this kind of thing than you or I. They don't make up these things or say them for fun. Do you know something that they don't?

If your phone was in the back of the car would you stop to answer it too.. how many people talk on their phones or text? It's not the distraction element but the safety of the seat if involved in an accident.. a baby screaming in the back of the car is really distracting.. a baby screaming beside you where you can see what's wrong is maybe not as distracting.. what if you are on a road where it's not safe to stop? You can get distracted in lots of ways in a car without a baby in it.

I have often pulled in to soothe one of my kids..i've also had one in the front seat so i could get from a to b without having to stop 10 times, i have also had things flung at me from the back and roll under the seat and go under the pedals. Having kids in the car is always distracting. It's how you deal with the distraction that affects the safety of your driving, but that will not protect a baby in a car that's crashing. Only the seat will and how it's put into the car and where it's put.

I was in a crash 8 weeks ago with both my youngest in the back of the car the seats protected them, they were covered in glass but uninjured.. the airbags didn't deploy cos all the damage was at the back of the car. had i put the baby in the front and disabled the airbag he wouldn't have been covered in glass. . was i right or wrong? i don't know but if his face had been cut or glass in his eye i would have kicked myself.. yes it was the first thing the paramedics checked for.. so driver distraction aside, in law, there is no reason that you cannot travel safely with your baby beside you with the airbag disabled.

leeomurchu

Ah I never said you were lazy I'd imagine far from it the fact you're on here asking the questions you've your kids priority first.

It would be more convenient having them in the front but for me I know I'd be paying more attention to them than the road when they start acting up.

As far as a child crying in the back I've yet to hear of a child coming to harm from simply crying

Either way hopefully he or she will sleep soundly on all your future car trips problem solved it's easy for me to oppose your decision as ours sleep soundly when in their car seats

Good luck I'm sure you'll have no problems

soddy1979

I always put the child in the front seat.

That being said, I think it makes sense that the child is safer in the back of the car (if the car crashes). Purely because most crashes occur at the front of the vehicle and therefore there is more protection from impact in the back of the vehicle.

On the flip side, I think there is less likelihood of a crash occurring when the baby is in the front of the car with me. When baby is in the back, and my wife is in the front, I constantly get "watch the road, not the baby". I personally think it is more difficult to see the baby in the mirror that sits on the headrest. It will take me a couple of seconds longer for me to see that baby is OK when looking through the two mirrors, whilst I can glance at the baby if he is beside me.

Anyway, whatever works for you, you should roll with. Their is no statistical evidence to show either way is superior!

leeomurchu

it's actually more like the opposite the front of a car is designed for an impact the rear of a car isn't so although more unlikely to be involved in a severe impact the rear is probably more of a risk than the front strangely enough

leeomurchu

Sure at the end of the day I remember when I was being dragges up and transported around it a falling apart ford fiesta 3 door with 3 in the back and 2 in the boot:eek: We all turned out alright although for some that could be argued

vibe666

leeomurchu wrote: »

Looking at it form a different angle the airbags are predominantly in the front of the car so would it not be the case that this is the safest place to have your child as the front of a car is designed for safety during a crash unlike the rear it.

if you are an adult, properly restrained in the front of a car with air bags then it is normally much safer than without, although not as safe as sitting in the back as the majority of accidents cause more damage at the front of the car than the back.

if you are a small child however, airbags can be a lethally dangerous ballistic projectile as they are designed for adults, not children and a small child (with or without a child seat) is positioned (quite literally) directly in the firing line of the airbag which is deployed in the event of a collision at speeds of >200mph in order to be fully inflated before an adult passenger hits it.

unfortunately, there were several cases in the 1990's of children seated in the front of cars that were either seriously injured or killed by the airbags deploying and hitting the child before they were fully inflated, including several nasty cases of small children who were decapitated by the deployment of the airbags in some accidents that could have otherwise been minor with little or no injuries.

leeomurchu

vibe666 wrote: »

if you are an adult, properly restrained in the front of a car with air bags then it is normally much safer than without, although not as safe as sitting in the back as the majority of accidents cause more damage at the front of the car than the back.

if you are a small child however, airbags can be a lethally dangerous ballistic projectile as they are designed for adults, not children and a small child (with or without a child seat) is positioned (quite literally) directly in the firing line of the airbag which is deployed in the event of a collision at speeds of >200mph in order to be fully inflated before an adult passenger hits it.

unfortunately, there were several cases in the 1990's of children seated in the front of cars that were either seriously injured or killed by the airbags deploying and hitting the child before they were fully inflated, including several nasty cases of small children who were decapitated by the deployment of the airbags in some accidents that could have otherwise been minor with little or no injuries.

OP has pointed out that she intends on turning the airbags off

vibe666

leeomurchu wrote: »

OP has pointed out that she intends on turning the airbags off

i was replying specifically to your post, not hers.

however, i had assumed that you had meant that just having airbags in the front would automatically make things safer, which i'm now guessing from your response that it isn't actually what you'd meant, so apologies for the misunderstanding.

leeomurchu

As I was responding to original OP with all information regarding are bags being switched off. This sites full of misinformed folks jumping on comments before reading thoroughly so don't worry about it.

vibe666

its the same as anything else, not everyone is always going to agree on everything.

dublinlady

vibe666 wrote: »

its the same as anything else, not everyone is always going to agree on everything.

I agree with that

Moonbeam

dublinlady wrote: »

Your right I have decided - but thanks for your opinion , yeah I rang the car garage and was shown how to disable simply with the key. I have installed the isofix base.
It's not laziness that has motivated my decision - its safety

You installed the isofix base in the front? there are very few cars with this feature but it must give extra piece of mind.