Talk:Infant car seat

Note: We need a history of Child Safety Seats.

History link provided, someone should take this information and integrate it into the article. --Ecksemmess 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much Canada

Mind you, I'm fond of the place, but the main article's awfully, er, Canadacentric--laws regarding child safety seats in different regions should be linked externally. Pity I'm not the man for it.Nhrenton 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree! I can write the Australian section, but I don't know where/how to put it in... Lizzie.gordon (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes a change from being USA-centred, as most articles are - so much so that they are written as if all readers are Americans. Sickeningly insular and parochial!

The description surely is wrong. A "car seat" is just that. It is not ambiguous, it is incorrect if used to mean a child's car seat. The same goes for "restraint car seat" - odd that the editor didn't see that as ambiguous. And "infant safety seat" and "child safety seat" are not the same, as babies, infants, toddlers and children imply different age groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Balls

We didn't have any of this when I was a kid. back then rear seats didn't have those uncomfortable shoulder straps, windows rolled down all the way, and you could pull the belt out enough to fit an adult without it 'catching' and constricting you if you try to use it. Let's just admit it, cars are deathtraps. No amount of inconvenience is going to fix that.. and anyway if you get in an accident you might as well be dead because you can't afford car repairs -and- food.

Interesting attitude! I guess it's a personal thing but I'd never allow anyone - child or adult - in my car unless they had an appropriate and properly fitting restraint (seat belt or child seat). Lizzie.gordon (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Car seats Save Lives

Edited my prior comments in response to balls. Mommy0406 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Information needed

• There are now sections to put in both US and Canadian laws and links if somebody can add them.

• There's a request for a section about child safety seat history, however I don't see the link for it, so this is a new section that will need to be researched and written. I'm unfamiliar with the history so will let someone else start that one.

• Also, does anyone have pictures that are public domain to add to the article? It would be nice to have a picture of each of the different kind of seats to place in the section where each is described.

Mommy0406 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'groups' of car seats listed here are not internationally applicable. I'm new to WIkipedia but I do know about Child Car Seats and Restraints. Can I reorganise these 'groups' into more general guides, or at least fix up the Australia section so that people can have some idea of what the Australian guidelines are? Lizzie.gordon (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Seats may have an "expiry date", but they do not "expire in 6 years"! That is a something ridiculously literal rendering of common guidelines. And on the topic of poor English, owners are not "strongly suggested" to replace the seats, they are "strongly advised" to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have removed the New Zealand section, which was a blatant copyright violation, copied verbatim from here and here. Copyright in that site is reserved, except for personal use. --Chewy m (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Does anyone else see the consumerism ends of this product? New seats bought as the child grows; not usuable after an accident; don't buy a used product; expiration dates; recalls; this is not a product of a sustainable economy. Is the limited percentages of reduced injury in a crash worth sacrificing the planet to landfills and polution that nothing can live in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.58.68 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. We don't have to choose between "sacrificing the planet" and risking our children's lives. There is certainly a lot of plastic waste that could be cut out, but getting rid of car seats are not part of it. People could easily offset all the disposed plastic from their child's car seats simply by cutting out bottled water for short period of time, for example. Of all the plastic products that will be eventually thrown away, this is by far one of the most useful. Sure, there are companies that make money providing this necessary product, but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing.--RLent (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I must concede, on matter of rhetoric, a false alternative has been employed. However I believe the tone of placing "sacrificing the planet" in quotes suggests a willingness to dismiss the gravity and ignore the value system implied in those quotes. To illustrate the possible gravity, it has been suggested that our present way of living may bring about an anoxic event.

"up to 95% of species were extinct. The end-Permian wipeout is the nearest this planet has ever come to becoming just another lifeless rock drifting through space. ... Rocks also show a 'fungal spike' as plants and animals rotted in situ. Still more corpses were washed into the oceans, helping to turn them stagnant and anoxic." If such an event happens; the build in obsolescence, and throw away culture that child safety seat laws help perpetuate would surely have played a contributing factor to that end. The possibility of an anoxic event is likely small and the certainty of connections are subject to dispute.

Still, the basis of laws enforcing child safety seats are founded on a like false alternative with respect to possibility and certainty; The implied false alternative is that the parent must provide a child safety seat or the child will die in an automobile accident. A child can still die with a safety seat and they can still survive a car ride without one. Saving children's lives is a glistening generality that is part of this child safety politics. It is difficult to avoid being captivated by it's influence. A sobering reminder is that cars are the danger and the seat is a possible safety precaution. The seat is useless to the child hit by a car outside of a car. The safest measure we could take would be to stop using cars. The number of lives saved by child safety seats will be a number forever in contention because; there are no perfect simulations, and alternative futures cannot be known. The chance that a child going on one car ride without a safety seat will die is small. Considering how many children lived their lives through car rides before these laws it is likely still low for the childhood of the child. To prove that a car seat saved a life, would be subject to contention since alternative contributing factors would come into play. Thus the connections are subject to dispute.

Rhetoric aside, a critical audience must weigh the relative merits of such conflicting value systems when using reasoned decision making. It is likely a balanced approach can be taken, one that addresses both the concerns of environmental impact and child safety. Safety laws that require updates and disposal don't address both concerns.

In regards to bottled water, at least you can refill a plastic bottle and reuse it.

My wish is that some university professors write some papers related to this. We then would then have a source on criticism of present day child safety seat laws that could be referenced. There is a criticism section on many other wikipedia articles, I hope one day to see one here.

66.81.199.98 (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The Seat-Belt Solution. It's not an academic paper, but it's enough to write a criticism section. 173.67.15.13 (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So because you believe that plastic is bad, I should, is that relevant to child seats in anyway? perhaps this discussion should be a part of a page called consumerism?

danielmyles1 (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this discussion page should be used only for suggestions on how to improve this article as an encyclopedia entry, rather than as space for anyone with an axe to grind to editorialize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.138.36 (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE 1.Plastic degrades over time, that is why there are expiry dates....laws, not manufacturers choice 2.If a car seat has been in an accident or dropped there can be microscopic cracks in the plastic that can lead to car seat failure in an accident. 3. Appropriate child car restraints have overwhelmingly been found to save or minimise the risk of injury or death in most situations. 4. car seats have to be upgraded to larger sizes as they grow so they retain the safety relevant to age hieght weight... just the same as life jackets when out in boats...its not rocket science 5. as a parent child safety is paramount... anything that is likey to minimise risk of harm to my child is what I go for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.104.20 (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is entirely unencyclopedic. A rewrite is in order. Contributions/64.211.50.218 (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Tiktok

Is "small stature people" another ridiculous PC euphemism for children? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

History doesn't seem neutral

The History section of this article reads like a child safety advocate, or car seat manufacturer's ad. Please review this article for neutral POV.

67.188.231.163 (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Neutral

This entire article does not seem neutral at all. There is no history of car seats and everything seems really biased. A rewrite is in order. 24.107.165.221 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

TTo me it seems a bit stupid to reccommend forward-facing sitting when you know that it is safer to have the children under 4 years old rear-facing "the swede" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.124.33.159 (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

1. different countries have different laws or recommendations. My country does not recommend rear facing until 4yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.104.20 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagerism

This article is the exact same thing as its source, breaking federal law. It needs to be completely re-written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.223.112 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

While we are at it, let's run the whole damn thing through a spell check one time. If the contributor can't properly spell it, the rest of the offering is probably for crap too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.39.82 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

All Bark No Bite

The unfortunate reality is: car seats are law in most countries. Regardless of the propaganda, consumerism, US vs Canadian etc etc. And the information/ laws/ brands and finite differences between them change at an alarming rate!! I'll be honest and say I am being hypocritical here - but I neither have the time nor energy to completely re-work this topic, - and it DOES need a COMPLETE re-work!!! We need one person from each country to volunteer, and move on keeping this information updated. MOMS! Someone just do it! (because as we can see most people don't care enough to) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TracyLoeppky (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maxi Cosi

I have redirected maxi cosi to their parent company's article rather than this page. 188.222.188.169 (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

rear facing or rear-facing?

The article switches back and forth between hyphenating the term. Hyphenated seems more correct to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaorndor (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge with "Child Safety Seat"

Is everyone in agreement that the two should be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zujua (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be one article, and it should be located at Child safety seat (because "Child" encompasses both infants and older children; it doesn't make sense to discuss seats for older children at an article about infant seats). Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but think that it should be called "Child Passenger Safety", to cover the older children who may be using a seat belt. Catfeet1 (talk) 14:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Catfeet1

The WP:TITLE guideline would disagree.

Also, neither this article nor child safety seat has any meaningful coverage of children who simply wear seat belts, so there is no need to include such coverage by making the title less precise. Both articles are about car seats for children. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree they should be merged and located at Child safety seat. A parent will need this information through the life of their child from birth to age 13. Having it all in one spot makes more sense to me. Notsonativetexan (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)NotSoNativeTexan

• There doesn't seem to be much disagreement. I look forward to "someone" doing it. Josh Parris 13:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Regulations

In the "Europe" section, the article states, "Children may not be transported using a rearward-facing child restraint system in a passenger seat protected by a front air bag, unless the air bag has been deactivated." Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't make sense to me; a front-facing system would be dangerous in an air-bag deployment, but it seems to me a rear-facing system would be safer.--Miniapolis (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that in a front-facing seat, the child would be far enough away from the airbag that it wouldn't touch him, but in a rear-facing seat, the airbag would hit the back of the chair and could have quite an impact. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

AAP Guidelines Revised 04/2011

There's no discussion about the revised guidelines that were released March 2011 by the US organization American Academy of Pediatrics. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/AAPPolicyStatement.pdf

"In a new policy published in the April 2011 issue of Pediatrics (published online March 21), the AAP advises parents to keep their toddlers in rear-facing car seats until age 2, or until they reach the maximum height and weight for their seat. It also advises that most children will need to ride in a belt-positioning booster seat until they have reached 4 feet 9 inches tall and are between 8 and 12 years of age."

Most parents turn the seats around far earlier than age 2 because the child gets extremely uncomfortable with their legs jammed against the back of the seat in the rear facing position and it's harder to keep an eye on them.

The booster seat recommendation has more to do with height at weight 4'9" and 100 lbs than the age of the child. Notsonativetexan (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)NotSoNativeTexan