Booster Seats

[Balham]

for those with younger children...

at what age did you remove the back of the booster seat so they are just sitting on a booster cushion? My lad is 5 and I'm thinking of keeping him with the back on the booster seat for a while longer, but my wife says she sees "loads" of kiddies on the school run where they just sit on the base alone. I like the idea of having the side impact protection on the head but maybe it's no longer required??

cheers

[curryholic]

We've just taken the back off my 6yr old's seat. Partly because of practicality, we're passing her seat around with other friends to go to Rainbows/Gymnastics so we've bought 2 boosters and given her full seats to our 3yr old. Although when we go on a long run (in-laws down in Devon) we may re-install the back.

[ap0gee1978]

Sorry but Ap0gee Jr is staying in her full child seat until she's too big for it (>36kg IIRC). Short journey or not, I'd hate to ever have to wonder "if only I hadn't been bothered about what the other parents on the school run did..."

[Gizmo]

My 10 yr old son (but short for his age) is still in his Recaro Start seat (recommended from 3 - 12yrs) so it all depends on the size of the child.

[fluffmeister]

Mine still use the full seat in the wife's car, but that's more to do with the really flat rear seat in the back of the Polo, in mine I have booster's only, no back and they are fine, I started that from around 6, but my kids are both really tall as well. They are now 9 and my lad can go without a booster in my car, whilst the daughter still needs one to get the seat belt positioning right.

[GroundHog]

My wife used to look after a little girl who was paralysed when she was sat on a booster seat and involved in a car accident. Basically the booster seat moved forward in the collision, but her seat belt held her back in place and it snapped her spine. Its quite an extreme example, admittedly, but considering this, my child is going to continue to have a back to his seat until he no longer needs a seat.

[curryholic]

The other reason, just jogged memory, was that our 6yr old was at the top end of the seat anyway. The replacement boosters have two wings either side of the seat which hooks the belt into, I guess to stop anything like the child that your mrs looked after Groundhog!

It's quite amusing when I think back that my dad used to drive around with me and my sister on the parcel shelf of his MG Midget

[fluffmeister]

My boosters are ISOFIX, with the above mentioned wings, so thankfully no danger of them slipping forward.

[ap0gee1978]

The replacement boosters have two wings either side of the seat which hooks the belt into, I guess to stop anything like the child that your mrs looked after Groundhog!

That's the idea on ones like this:

...but clearly you don't get the side and (probably more importantly) neck protection of a full seat.

OTOH, the material on the one above looks to be a good match for the Recaro the littl'un uses ATM!

[mdk1]

My 9 year old still sits on a booster, but we have taken the back off now. Only in the last month as she said it made her back ache.

She sits much better in the back of the main seat and the head rest fits her aswell.

My 12 year just sits without a booster, and fit nicely as she is quite tall.

[gilesk]

dont change up to a lesser level of protection until you have to would be my advice.

[CJSVRS]

I use the ISOFIX booster seats with the backs on for my 4 and 6 yr olds, and believe until they don't fit they offer increased protection over anything else.

Another advantage is they can fall asleep in them without danger of slipping out of the belt.

[KBPhoto]

When we purchased a seat for our eldest (now almost 6) we were told that there is evidence that having an ISOFIX seat could result in a higher risk of injury as the child's seat would not move!

Still have not worked that one out after two years as none of the adult seats move...

We are now looking for a seat for our second (almost 3) and the wife wants a booster seat (no back) for our eldest and the youngest to have the one we currently have.

I'm all for having as much safety for for our kids as possible (and not hoping we never have a crash - especially a side impact).

The law in the UK is quite clear (http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/law/#kids311) that until 12 years or 1.35m tall the child must be in the rear with an appropriate seat.

How much do you love your children?

Enough to spend the extra money of one with a back?

Stick with the back to give them the best chance in the worst case scenario rather than finding out too late.

If you do go for just the seat with no back, get a strap which pulls the seatbelt down to the correct height for the child e.g. http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductMobileDisplay?catalogId=10151&storeId=10001&productId=159966&categoryId=165597&langId=-1

[The Skud]

My Wife was on a course with a traffic policeman recently, he attended a fatal accident in which a 6 year old girl was killed as she was only in a booster seat, it was a fairly low speed side impact and she was thrown against the side of the car and suffered head injuries which caused the fatality, the accident investigation team he was working with concluded that had the child been in a full child seat with side and head protection she would have easily survived, most probably unharmed.

For those of you with small children looking to buy your first car seat for a toddler or second for an older child, research them rigorously the most expensive are not always the best, the top of the range £300 Recaro seat failed in most tests to gain even adequate scores in most areas whereas most of the Britax ones scored top in their categories, especially the ISOfix ones.....yes they are expensive but what price on the lives of your kids?

As cost, shop around I bought 2 top rated Isofix seats for £110 each from halfords...RRP is £200 but I got a good deal....

Edited 7 February, 2011 by The Skud

[Splooter]

The law in the UK is quite clear (http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/law/#kids311) that until 12 years or 1.35m tall the child must be in the rear with an appropriate seat.

Where does it say they must be in the rear ?

[KBPhoto]

Apologies - I misread the info that I linked to and was thinking of rearward facing car seats foryounger children / babies "Never put a rearward-facing baby seat in the front if there is a passenger airbag."

Although, in theory, you could deactivate the front passenger air bag in most modern cars!

I had also been reading this page on advice to do with air bags (http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/choosing/airbags.htm) where it says "Make sure that children travel in the rear of the car, if possible - it is safer."

[themacster]

I would never compromise on the safety of my children - the back is staying on until they no longer fit the seat. We use the Maxi Cosi Rodi SPS - it's one of the two most highly rated by Which? - the other being the Britax. I've no intention of saying to myself "What if?" after an accident. Remember, no matter how careful you may be, you can't control the actions of others.

[Stevoraith]

research them rigorously the most expensive are not always the best, the top of the range £300 Recaro seat failed in most tests to gain even adequate scores in most areas whereas most of the Britax ones scored top in their categories,

See, that's the problem. After lots of searching on google I still can't find anywhere which lists crash test results for child seats.

[KBPhoto]

See, that's the problem. After lots of searching on google I still can't find anywhere which lists crash test results for child seats.

Watch this for some idea of what goes on.

[KBPhoto]

But I can't believe that the side impact test for child car seats is not required under current legislation!

[KBPhoto]

The 'Which!' magazine requires that you purchase the relevant edition (or online subscription) in order to see their results of their own tests.

However 'Which!' note that "Most cars are safety rated for the protection they give adults in such a crash, but child car seats, inexplicably, are not legally required to undergo a side impact test."!!! They do list the four child seats they suggest to avoid on the same page.

For other lists look at this page although it is American and the standards and testing procedures are slightly different.

The manufacturers themselves have a legal requirement to provide independent testing of their products and an inspection of their manufacturing plants in order to obtain the relevant CE mark for their product. These are not comparative test, but test to see if they conform to set testing standards. Take a look at this page for more info on the general principles.

The standards required for these tests are generally not available on the internet as they are very bulky and technical documents, but they are generally available for purchase (usually around £70+ per testing standard / CE mark.

The references to ISOFIX being 'safer' stems from research which showed that many child car seats (prior to ISOFIX) were not being fitted correctly by the parents. ISOFIX was created as an attempt to reduce the likelihood of a child being injured by an incorrectly fitted seat.

Hope that all helps you all.