I want the Straight Dope™ on the safety/danger equation of kids and air bags. I’m very much aware that kids under 12 should ride buckled-up in the back seat. Fine, but frankly I’m not going to always do that for the 6 or 7 block trips to and from school. I know this sends some people into histrionics, but I wonder what the real dangers are. In particular:
(1) As long as they are buckled-up, how dangerous is the air bag?
(2) From a acturarial point of view, is it safer to leave the passenger side air bag on or off for the under 12 set?
My ex and I used to have very … energetic arguments about this. First of all, I’m going to just point out that neither your car nor body knows whether or not it’s just traveled six blocks or six states, and so the distance should not affect whether you take certain safety precautions. If you want a cite, I’ll drag it out, but a huge amount of accidents (I want to say a majority but without a cite, I’ll leave it vague) happen “close to home”. A former boss of mine was in a serious, near-fatal accident on his own street corner.
That being said, the danger of airbags to kids has little to do with whether they’re wearing their seatbelt or not - the issue is that their bodies are not strong enough to withstand the blow from an airbag at the point at which it would hit them. Ok that was a clumsy sentence. An airbag is designed to deploy at an adult’s upper torso. Now with most kids under 12 (and a few over 12), that’s actually head level. So if you can imagine which would be more physically damaging - a hard blow square to the chest, or a hard blow glancing off the top of the head (and thereby forcing the head backwards), I think it makes more sense as to why it’s not a good idea.
It’s a pain in the ass, I know. I have 3 kids and a small car. And my two older children are getting to the age where riding in the front seems “so cool”. But whether or not we’re going to the end of the street or to the other side of the country, they go in the back, and that’s where they’ll stay. I’m not prepared to take the risk of “what are the chances”. Even if the chance is 1 in a trillion, it’s not one I’m prepared to take.
Sorry if I sound at all less than civil, it certainly isn’t intended, but this is one subject that I feel very strongly about.
The kind of parent that drives their kid that far is probably a greater risk factor to their child’s health than one that doesn’t even buckle them in. It would be interesting to observe the Norton family experiment in natural selection.
I don’t know about an actuarial point of view, but I decided that it was much safer for me to have the airbag turned off than to be killed in a (should-be) non-fatal accident. I’m not 12 years old, but I’m about the size of your average 12-year-old. If the airbag deployed and I was sitting close enough to the steering wheel that my feet were able to reach the pedals, I would be killed (as I understand it).
Now, I always thought that the distance from the air bag played a role in the danger as well. Since your 12-year-old in the passenger seat isn’t driving, isn’t it possible for them to sit far enough away from the airbag that it poses no danger to them?
This is, in my estimation, a fine example of how easy it is to lie with statistics. I won’t argue that your statement is incorrect, as I have heard it cited by reputable sources. However, the simple fact is that you are close to home almost every single time you drive your car. Every trip, from the quick jaunt to the supermarket, to the cross-country family vacation, must pass through the “close to home” region.
So, really, it’s not that “close to home” is any more dangerous than anywhere else (which is what those who cite the above statistic usually seem to be claiming), but rather that the majority of the time you spend driving is “close to home”, and thus, if we assume that accidents are completely random, that is where you would expect the majority of them to occur.
As already stated, it’s not whether the kid is buckled in, but the distance from the airbag that counts. And where the kid’s head is.
Now, I don’t want to be gruesome or alarmist, but some of the fatalities involving children under 12 and airbags have involved decapitation. So yes, it most certainly IS dangerous for children to ride in a front seat equipped with an airbag.
Even if they were buckled in and the seat pushed way far back, there is still the problem that children seldom sit still, and may lean forward into the “danger zone”.
Keep 'em in the back or, if the option if available, turn the airbag off if they’re up front.
Might be where you expect them to occur, but the thinking that “it’s just two minutes down the road, why would I need my seat belt” is so pervasive, that clearly not everyone expects the majority of accidents to occur close to home. My interpretation of “close to home” being, less than a mile from home.
1 mile or less 23 percent
2 to 5 miles 29 percent
6 to 10 miles 17 percent
11 to 15 miles 8 percent
16 to 20 miles 6 percent
More than 20 miles 17 percent
Remember that this is the SDMB where we fight ignorance, not perpetuate conventional wisdom without questioning it. This is a factual question posted in GQ, and I am hoping for factual answers, so that’s why I specifically asked the question from an actuarial point of view.
In other words, have there been tests in which crash-test dummies representing 10-year olds were in simulated accidents with the air bags on or off. In which case do the “kids” do better?
There will be times when kids under 12 are going to be in the front seat. (Please no moralizing. If you must do that, start a new thread.) In those cases is it safer to leave the air bag on or turn it off?
The relative safety of many short trips vs. few long ones is an interesting question in and of itself, and it deserves its own thread, but it’s not the question in this one.
My child is too old for a child seat. Should I allow my child to ride in the front seat with an air bag? Will the child be safe if the air bag deploys?
NHTSA recommends placing all children 12 and under in the rear seat. That is the safest place. If no option exists other than seating them in the front seat, several steps need to be taken. First, the child needs to be properly restrained. This means, depending on the size of the child, you should use a booster seat plus a lap/shoulder belt, or a lap/shoulder belt alone (for larger children).
Second, the vehicle seat needs to be pushed all the way back, to maximize the distance between the child and the air bag. Third, the child needs to be sitting with his/her back against the seat back, not wiggling around or leaning forward, with as little slack as possible in the belt in order to minimize forward movement in a crash.
How did the agency determine that age 12 was the appropriate age below which children must be seated in the rear for maximum protection? Wouldn’t height and weight be better determinants than age?
All children are safest in the rear of a vehicle, regardless of their age or size. In recommending that children 12 and under never sit in the front seat of a vehicle which is equipped with a passenger air bag, the agency reviewed all crashes in which children were killed due to impacts from the air bag. In no instance, has a child above the age of nine been killed by the air bag. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/airbagqa.html#Q10
