Car Seats Aren’t Any Better Than Seat Belts, Authors Say
Car seats are the only truly essential piece of baby equipment — or so we’ve been told. You can’t leave the hospital with your baby without one, and in many states kids are required to be in a booster seat in the back until they are well over four feet tall.
But authors Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt looked at the data for their new book “SuperFreakonomics” and found out that car seats do only slightly better than plain old seat belts in protecting kids over the age of two. The fatality rate for kids in car seats is 18.2 percent, while with seat belts it’s 18.1. They commissioned their own crash test as well which found seat belts and car seats protected kids about the same amount.
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration says car seats reduce fatality rates by 54 percent, but Levitt and Dubner point out that’s measured against kids riding totally unrestrained.
The authors aren’t advocating throwing out the car seat for older kids — you’ll get a ticket, for one, and it doesn’t do a worse job of protecting kids than seat belts. They do say they’d like to see more carmakers install flip-down seats that act as boosters and include five-point harnesses similar to what racecar drivers use, since proper installation is a problem for 80 percent of parents. And they note that for kids under two, a car seat is essential to keep them safe in the car.
Related Posts:
Related Posts:- Booster Seats Find a New Backer - Science
- New Seat Belt for Pregnant Women
- Inflatable Seat Belts Soon to be Available
- They Say: Infant Car Seats Not Safe for Sleeping
- They Say: Keep Babies Rear Facing Until Age 2
Tags: car crashes and kids, car seats, child safety, fatal car accident, protecting kids in the car, Stephen Dubner, Steven Levitt, superfreakonomics, traffic safety data
20 Comments
[...] interesting in light of the numbers spit out by the authors of SuperFreakonomics earlier: they say the fatality rate for kids in car seats is 18.2 percent, while with seat belts it’s 18.1. They were talking about ditching [...]
Booster Seats Find a New Backer - Science | Strollerderby commented on Oct 20 09 at 5:02 pmKikiriki commented on Oct 20 09 at 11:01 amI remember reading about this months ago, and what struck me was that the tests they did were all with forward-facing car seats. I have a feeling that rear-facing car seats would do significantly better when compared to the forward-facing kids, no matter what they’re using.
jenny tries too hard commented on Oct 20 09 at 11:12 amwoo-hoo…I have the flip down seats with 5-point harnesses, and my parents actually tried to convince me that boosters are safer for my three and five year olds. And kiki, it looks like the study was only on kids over 2, so I don’t know how a rear-facing car seat could even be logistically possible. Where would you put a three-year-old’s legs in a rear-facing car seat?
baconsmom commented on Oct 20 09 at 12:16 pm“Where would you put a three-year-old’s legs in a rear-facing car seat?”
Or their barf buckets? (We’re a chronically motion-sick family, and it started at age 2. Rear-facing would just mean more vomit to clean up.)
Em commented on Oct 20 09 at 1:24 pmUse tiny two year olds, like mine. Ha.
Karen commented on Oct 20 09 at 2:55 pmThey mention the fatality statistics, but not what happens to the kids if they were injuried, but not killed. I always thought a car seat was to better protect kids in an accident (and have less severe injuries) if they survived.
ruthmama commented on Oct 20 09 at 2:55 pmI’d rather have to clean up puke than have a dead kid. my son is 2 years old, and his legs fit perfectly straight rearfacing, and he’s a big boy. As he grows, he will find what is most comfortable for his legs, and he will put them there. I’d rather him breack both of his legs in a car crash than his neck, which is why rearfacing position is so much safer.
ChiLaura commented on Oct 20 09 at 3:04 pmI’m convinced there’s a “car seat lobby” in Washington. Otherwise, why all the ridiculous laws about booster seats (and, apparently, car seats)? Well, this does at least make me feel better about riding in cabs with the kiddos, on the rare occasions that we take one!
Ali commented on Oct 20 09 at 3:12 pmI like the way the shoulder harness wraps around my 4 year olds neck. That looks real safe.
MJ commented on Oct 20 09 at 3:33 pmRear facing seats are MUCH safer. Toddlers can easily bend their legs- bent legs are much better than snapped necks. There are plenty of videos on youtube for the visual learners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKIeExpDLDA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DVfqFhseo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8gU9zzCGA8
Anna commented on Oct 20 09 at 3:57 pmRe: a three-year old’s legs– they sit “indian-style”. That’s how my still-rear-facing 2.5 y.o. does it, and how older kids do it in Scandinavian countries (where the superior safety of rear-facing is taken seriously).
ga73 commented on Oct 20 09 at 4:03 pmYay, ChiLaura, I’m totally with you there!
Melanie commented on Oct 20 09 at 4:09 pmHave they compared injury rates? The article mentions only fatality rates.
Rear-facing carseats are available in Europe for kids up to about four years of age.
Kikiriki commented on Oct 20 09 at 8:08 pmMy kid is 3 and still rides rear-facing, she is comfortable and her legs can naturally cross. Overseas, kids tend to ride rear-facing for much longer than here, where most parents turn their kids around by 18 months. The carseat lady website has great information on this.
Kelly commented on Oct 20 09 at 8:33 pmMy issue with the “research” is that the authors are assuming that a child who is two years old can sit properly using just a seat belt. Unfortunately, the 2 year old set isn’t known for following directions or sitting still. Therefore, they don’t sit in the proper location for a seat belt to work as it undoubtedly did in their research with dummies.
J commented on Oct 20 09 at 11:57 pmMy son is 2 and rides safely and comfortably rear-facing, and we have no plans to turn him anytime soon. He is 500 times safer than he’d be forward facing, and he legs are not squished. Like Kikiriki said, kids overseas (notably, in Sweden) ride rear facing frequently until ages 5 or 6 and they have far lower fatality and injury rates in crashes than kids in the US.
SJAnn commented on Oct 21 09 at 12:02 amWhy am I not surprised? We are a consumer driven economy. Everything from car seats to base for car seat to booster seats must sell. How to sell them? Make regulations. There you go. Though we have a new finding everyday. So I am not sure which one to believe.
Rosana commented on Oct 21 09 at 9:01 amMy son just turned 2 and he has been 3 feet tall since he was 18 months old so rear facing, not an option for me. I wish I had that option since it makes me feel more at ease.
J commented on Oct 21 09 at 1:52 pm@Rosana-My son is over 3 feet tall. Rear facing can work! Little kids will naturally cross their legs, especially when slightly reclined. Give it a try!
ChiLaura commented on Oct 21 09 at 2:31 pmJ and Kikiriki — What kind of car seats do you have your kids in? The convertible ones that hold up to 40 pounds? That’s the only thing I can think of. I’m puzzled.
