I was just replying to Harmonious Discord’s questions about why a rear-facing car seat would be a problem with airbags, that’s all.
Apparently you missed what I posted upthread.
Colour ignorance fought.
I’m actually gobsmacked that two people in this thread have asked a question the answer for which I thought was common knowledge. The warning labels have been on every car I’ve ever been in since airbags became standard. Even though I don’t have a kid, I’ve never been able to avoid seeing the signage.
I guess people really don’t read warning labels.
:: Goes off to iron a shirt while still wearing it. ::
All right you, get over here and clean the Diet Coke off of my monitor.
On one hand, millions of kids were raised riding in cars long before child car seats ever became the standard of infant safety, and most of us are still here to brag about it. And most of us also never used a seatbelt, in front or in back.
However, the child safety seat (and its cousins, the airbag and the front car seat, and how they interact) is now the standard and in many places, the law. It’s nearly impossible to be a parent and not know what the accepted safety measures are for the child. Is it wrong to find such a parent irresponsible? No, considering where we are as a society and what we know about infant safety. But is it absolutely reprehensable and unthinkable? Not really.
corkboard, I’ll agree that it’s not unthinkable, but… It’s **not **utterly reprehensible for a parent to be ignorant of basic and readily available knowledge about how **not **to kill or seriously injure their child?
Look on the bright side, if she accidentally locks the baby in her convertible on a hot day it won’t suffocate.
Quartz lives in the UK, where airbag safety warnings are generally restricted to the owner’s manual. Those ridiculous giant permanent warning labels attached to the back of every sun visor in America are annoying and unsightly.
Apparently effective, though.
ETA: I don’t think airbags are required by law yet in the UK and I’d be surprised if many 2-seat sports cars (or hairdressers’ cars, depending on your take on the TT) came with them.
What’s your point? I think it’s safe to assume that a baby in a convertible is more susceptible to UV exposure than one in a car with a roof. It doesn’t preclude the fact that a hat, on its own, does not adequately protect from sun exposure whether through a window or directly.
Right. All that woo woo stuff about melanomas and ultraviolet radiation is clearly a fallacy. Nobody ever contracts skin cancer. Nobody ever suffers disfigurement or dies as a result. Whatever.
Screw it. Who cares if people let their babies fry. It’s only a sunburn; it’ll heal.
I realize you’re actually making an opposite point, but this really makes me nuts. “Most” of us aren’t here despite lack of seatbelts – ALL of us are here despite lack of seatbelts (and other safety equipment). Because the kids for whom they would have made a difference are DEAD! That’s why we have them NOW!
You would actually need to have a car seat to read the warning label. I have no baby or car seat, thus have no need to have researched this. Why would this question leave you gobsmacked.
The label I always see is on the sun visor of the vehicle.
Nobody ever got skin cancer in an afternoon.
The worst that will happen to this poor kid is a wicked burn and an appreciation for open air motoring. Mom will probably get yelled at by the doctor when she asks why baby is all red and won’t stop screaming, but that’s about the end of it.
Ask the guy who was brought home from the hospital in a convertible with the top down.
Just attach a knife to the back of the carseat. That way if the airbag deploys it’ll just pop and scare the shit out of the brat instead of decapitating it.
(no, I’m not serious)
There, question answered. If the parents are relying on the airbag not to deploy under 40 lbs, they’re doing it wrong. They need to turn the airbag off. That is the only thing these parents may be doing wrong in this thread and the OP does have the right to worry about it.
My daughter’s carseat does not say that. It says to consult the owner’s manual before putting it in front if the vehicle has airbags. I turned the airbag off and put her in front because it’s safer in my particular vehicle. I’m a single dad and (gasp!) can’t afford to trade it in. Yeah, hard to believe, huh?
The OP never said how long the kid was going to be in the sun. Since she’s the nanny, I’d assume they live somewhat close. Did the nanny see the kid today? Was he sunburned? On what grounds have you already convicted this woman of letting her kid fry and get cancer? Poor kid, went from being the owner of a new hat to contracting skin cancer, being disfigured and dying in the space of a few posts. Based on the evidence presented in this thread, I think someone better put a warning label on the hat.
From a quick googling it looks like US specs cars do not have airbag switches, even if the same model sold in Europe has it.
Actually the rearfacing baby seat is better in several respects. It protects the baby better in a frontal collision plus the parent can keep an eye on the baby without having to turn around. Interesting info here: http://www.rearfacing.co.uk/facts.php
If it is a 2 seat car by US regulation it will have an on off switch for the passenger air bag. If it has a “legal” back seat it won’t.
Why the “” around Legal? Many trucks are according to regulations a 2 or 3 passenger vehicles despite an upholstered area behind the front seats. Even if that area has seat belts it may not legally be a seating area. Think of it as a upholstered cargo area. (which is how the law looks at it)
This is what an airbag switch looks like: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7836/0010hdk.jpg. This is from my 4-seater Citroen C4.
No label on the sun visors of vehicles I ride in either so don’t be gobsmacked.