I had the same thought, but figured I’d let the mods sort it out.
Plus, it’s quite interesting to give it a read and discuss if this would work. I doubt it would. When you read the stories of people leaving the kid in the car, it’s always on the days that things are just that bit different from usual days. When everything is normal, and everything goes according to plan, those aren’t the days people leave the baby in the car.
So what would happen is: quick trip to the shop, so you don’t think you need to punch in the journey, then you forget baby, then you get held up, then the baby dies in the car. I say it doesn’t work.
OTOH, I personally would buy an alarm with weight sensor. Just because it’s so scary and I know how my brain can sometimes just glitch. It’s possible. (I left my dog in the car once for a few minutes, just completely forgot her!) I agree that it is unlikely to take off as a product and too risky for the manufacturers, but I would buy it.
It does need to be made mandatory that helps in keeping the kids safe ans secure. The necessary laws should be enforced to make sure it is made mandatory.
The big problem that I see in your post is that you are calmly thinking this issue through in a measured and rational manner. You are actually trying to anticipate potential problems and predict how the device would be used in everyday life.
I advise you to not use your critical thinking skills in this manner. You should just let your emotions and sense of outrage rule the day, and begin to clamor loudly for lawmakers to force the automotive industry to come up with a solution to this.
Speaking of groceries, you have to be able to disable the car sensor for those of us who have no children and put the groceries on the back seat. (Though I guess I could view it as a melting ice cream alarm.) Anyway, anything that can be disabled will be disabled, kids or no kids. Even if it’s meant to be disabled only temporarily, people will forget to turn it back on.
There are many, many safety “features” that are user-disabled after purchase. I rearrange vehicles in our parking area often enough that I disable the seatbelt chime whenever I purchase a car. I pick up sticks while mowing often enough that I disable the dead-man switch whenever I buy a lawn mower.
Personally, I’d prefer opt-in safety features.
/unpopular POV.
I have that gene you’re talking about. I’m forgetful and I know that I need to compensate for it. The people who are caught by this are people who aren’t forgetful - the people who don’t have that gene. They’re the ones who are blindsided by forgetfulness due to unantisipated mental fatigue.
An Update bump.
Intel is participating with Nabi in the development of the Nabi Car Seat clip. So a push from bigger brand names may finally be happening.
See here (CNET) for a description of how it will work.
Just skip the stupid idea of putting the kid in the back seat. Put the kid up front, where Mom doesnt have to be constantly reaching back around to check on the tyke, and where the kid will not be forgotten.
Yes, there is a small extra margin of safety in back. But it’s more than eaten up by the extra chance of getting into a accident by a Mom constantly reaching back there, or by accidentally leaving the kid in the car.
Um, what? The “small extra margin of safety” is 30-40% less likely to be injured/killed in the back versus the front. That’s not small. Do you have a cite to back up your claim that putting kids up front would reduce overall deaths?
Those statistics are related to injuries when the car is in an accident. Dr. Deth is saying that the chances of being in an accident are much greater when the kid is the back seat because mom is more distracted while driving trying to attend to the needs of the back seat passenger. Putting the kid in the front seat reduces the risk of getting in the accident in the first place.
I have no idea if any of the above is true, I was just stating that you were mischaracterizing Dr. Deth’s argument.
Correct.
In certain types of accidents- when and IF a accident occurs.
But they did not seem to measure if putting the car seats in the back increase the chances of a accident.
I point to these statistics:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
Note that child traffic fatalities have had only a mild decrease since 1996 and that decrease is mirrored in the 8-14 ages group- who are not in a backseat child seat. Cars are just safer.
Note there’s a corresponding decrease (actually greater) in child pedestrian fatalities- certainly not due to being in car seats or the back seat.
It is true that Children in rear-facing child seats should not be placed in the front seat of vehicles equipped with passenger-side air bags. But just dont use rear-facing seats or deactivate the airbag.
I am not saying dont use car seats- I am saying that putting them in the back *may *not be a good idea.
Drive sometime with a Mom who has a baby in the back seat. Your hair will be noticeably whiter at the end. 
Fair enough. I’d still like to see some stats on what must be a large number of accidents caused by mom reaching back to a child in the back seat, to outweigh the 30-40% increased risk in case of accident.
I can just as easily argue that putting a kid in the front seat will increase accidents, because the proximity of the child will cause mom to shift her attention and reach over to the child more frequently. And I have just as many hard facts to back up my assertion as DrDeth.
Exactly, and until you have something to back up your recommendation, don’t make it. Advocating for children to be in the front seat is irresponsible when there is a demonstrated and proven benefit to having the child in the back seat in case of accident.
I did. Note that putting the kid in the back seat has not actually reduced the child accident fatality rate.
It’s like that bogus factoid that big heavy SUV’s are “safer in a accident” leading some Moms to get them for extra child safety. True, in a certain rare type of accident, the big SUV is safer. But since the big SUV usually came with a higher accident rate (roll-overs) they were *actually less safe than a normal mid-size family sedan. *
Can you show me that putting a kid in the back seat actually reduces the overall fatality rate? Not the lesser risk if there* is* an accident, mind you- but the overall fatality rate?
But I am not recommending that parents unilaterally stop the back-seat practice. What I want is a true study that studies all angles-including the extra risk of a accident occurring and the* proven risk* of accidentally leaving the kid in the car.
Since I don’t see it with a quick search, I’ll add a method for not forgetting that I found in an article since this thread ended last year. It said to put your left shoe in the back seat, on the floor, when you put the baby in the carrier. Other tag-out systems might be overlooked in a rush, but you’re going to notice that you only have one shoe on.
I didn’t see anything in your linked report (or anywhere else) that could be extrapolated to say that. Where are you getting that?
:dubious: Yes, you did:
I agree on this. I was concerned when you initially skipped this step.
I point to these statistics:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809762.pdf
Note that child traffic fatalities have had only a mild decrease since 1996 and that decrease is mirrored in the 8-14 ages group- who are not in a backseat child seat. Cars are just safer.
Note there’s a corresponding decrease (actually greater) in child pedestrian fatalities- certainly not due to being in car seats or the back seat. *
By “Just skip the stupid idea” I meant get rid of the idea by testing it. Not the practice.
The NTHSA still says (in your own cite) “[c]hildren in rear-facing child seats should not be placed in the front seat of vehicles equipped with passenger-side air bags.” I’m fairly comfortable assuming they have taken the rear-looking mom issue into account.
I covered that. That is due to the *rear-facing *child seats and the air bags, and no, I doubt if they did. Any cite they took that into account?
Yes, cars are safer now than in 1996. How does that lead to “no decrease in fatalities by putting car seats in the back?” Were car seats placed in the front in 1996? And how are pedestrian deaths related to the relative safety of front seat versus rear seat in any way?