how risky is 9-yr-old in front seat of car?
August 10, 2024 11:56 AM Subscribe
My kid is 9 years old. I think in my jurisdiction (Ontario) the official rule, weirdly, is that kids are *strongly encouraged* to sit in the back seat, but not required to do so. I'd love to have my kid in the front with me - it'd make care rides so much more fun for both of us. I want to think out the risks on this: Are there sources on relative risk of front seat vs back? Ways to think about this risk/reward choice?
Note that the front airbag is disabled, which I gather contributes to the risk
Note that the front airbag is disabled, which I gather contributes to the risk
Response by poster: Thanks! Also: I notice that study is based on data from 1988-1995. My understanding is that car safety has changed a lot in the past 30 years... Excited if someone can find something more current.
posted by ManInSuit at 12:15 PM on August 10
posted by ManInSuit at 12:15 PM on August 10
Yeah, I had to go back that far to find studies that had cars without airbags.
I’m not sure what could’ve changed for non-airbag safety in the front seat, but hopefully somebody can come up with a more modern study.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:30 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
I’m not sure what could’ve changed for non-airbag safety in the front seat, but hopefully somebody can come up with a more modern study.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:30 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
According to a study in Paediatr Child Health, children who are 12 years old or younger have iliac crests that are less developed than those of adults. (The iliac crest is the part of the hip bone which keeps the seat belt properly positioned on the hips.) This can allow the seat belt to ride up over the abdomen, causing seat belt syndrome.
An Australian article addresses a child's height when discussing when to stop using a belt-positioning booster seat, whether in the front or back seat.
An article that tells you how to see if your car's seat belts fit your child correctly.
posted by cooker girl at 12:39 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
An Australian article addresses a child's height when discussing when to stop using a belt-positioning booster seat, whether in the front or back seat.
An article that tells you how to see if your car's seat belts fit your child correctly.
posted by cooker girl at 12:39 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: (note: the airbag is disabled on purpose. My understanding is that one reason the front seat is more dangerous is that airbags are unsafe for kids)
posted by ManInSuit at 12:44 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
posted by ManInSuit at 12:44 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
So, Ontario law. Seatbelt law is Research has shown that children under 12 are safest in the back seat of vehicles away from active airbags.
If the back seat is unavailable, children can sit in the front seat only if:
there is no active airbag for the front seat, or
the front airbag can be switched off
Note:If the back seat is unavailable
posted by warriorqueen at 12:44 PM on August 10 [4 favorites]
If the back seat is unavailable, children can sit in the front seat only if:
there is no active airbag for the front seat, or
the front airbag can be switched off
Note:If the back seat is unavailable
posted by warriorqueen at 12:44 PM on August 10 [4 favorites]
This sounds like a question for a CPST (child passenger safety technician). You could try asking on the SEATS for Kids Discussion Community on Facebook.
I would also check your vehicle information. There's usually specific recommendations for ages that are appropriate for front seat riding.
posted by Paper rabies at 12:44 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
I would also check your vehicle information. There's usually specific recommendations for ages that are appropriate for front seat riding.
posted by Paper rabies at 12:44 PM on August 10 [2 favorites]
If you car model is also for sale in Europe, you can check the NCAP data: example: Dacia Duster.
It does not test with child dummies in the front seats, but you can see in this example that a child in the back is safer than an adult in the front. Children (and women) benefit less from the available safety equipment than male adults, so the actual difference between front and back would be even greater.
Consider watching the videos of the crash test. (In case it wasn't clear, I'm trying to dissuade you from letting your kid ride in front.)
posted by demi-octopus at 12:52 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
It does not test with child dummies in the front seats, but you can see in this example that a child in the back is safer than an adult in the front. Children (and women) benefit less from the available safety equipment than male adults, so the actual difference between front and back would be even greater.
Consider watching the videos of the crash test. (In case it wasn't clear, I'm trying to dissuade you from letting your kid ride in front.)
posted by demi-octopus at 12:52 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
I'd also ask how tall/heavy your kid is --- from this (somewhat random search)
"Car manufacturers typically design airbags to protect an adult who’s at least 5 feet tall and roughly 150 pounds. Even if a child is wearing a seat belt correctly when riding in the front seat, they’re more likely to sustain injuries from a passenger airbag than an adult" and suggests that kids can skip the booster after they're taller than 4'9". Another link suggests when they're taller than 4'9" and weigh more than 80 lbs.
So that'd be where I would start with -- if your kid is shorter than 4'9" or lighter than 80 lbs, I'd say they should stay in the back seat for sure. If they're on the taller/heavier side, you could balance the risks/rewards.
(I'm barely 5' and less than 150lbs, and I sit in the passenger and driver's seat of my car on the regular. So...if you have a taller-than-normal kid, maybe it would be ok.)
posted by leahwrenn at 1:32 PM on August 10
"Car manufacturers typically design airbags to protect an adult who’s at least 5 feet tall and roughly 150 pounds. Even if a child is wearing a seat belt correctly when riding in the front seat, they’re more likely to sustain injuries from a passenger airbag than an adult" and suggests that kids can skip the booster after they're taller than 4'9". Another link suggests when they're taller than 4'9" and weigh more than 80 lbs.
So that'd be where I would start with -- if your kid is shorter than 4'9" or lighter than 80 lbs, I'd say they should stay in the back seat for sure. If they're on the taller/heavier side, you could balance the risks/rewards.
(I'm barely 5' and less than 150lbs, and I sit in the passenger and driver's seat of my car on the regular. So...if you have a taller-than-normal kid, maybe it would be ok.)
posted by leahwrenn at 1:32 PM on August 10
The official rule is what it is so families with four children don't have to go out and buy another car, when they can clearly transport all their kids in a single compact car.
posted by potrzebie at 2:45 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
posted by potrzebie at 2:45 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
If the reason you want to have your kid upfront is to make conversation easier, maybe find a cheap always-on walkie-talkie system?
In general, I'd advise that you find ways to mitigate whatever it is that makes having them in the back seat "not fun" instead of compromising on safety. Because if they start sitting in the front seat before it's safe and something happens to them, you'll spend the rest of your life torturing yourself about it. Not worth it when there's probably still a lot you can do to make the current seating arrangement more fun for both of you.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:12 PM on August 10 [5 favorites]
In general, I'd advise that you find ways to mitigate whatever it is that makes having them in the back seat "not fun" instead of compromising on safety. Because if they start sitting in the front seat before it's safe and something happens to them, you'll spend the rest of your life torturing yourself about it. Not worth it when there's probably still a lot you can do to make the current seating arrangement more fun for both of you.
posted by Jacqueline at 3:12 PM on August 10 [5 favorites]
My bias is that I'm a mom who kept my kid in the back seat for a very long time. One thing that made conversation more fun/accessible was a mirror like this, usually marketed to parents with babies.
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:06 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
posted by BlahLaLa at 5:06 PM on August 10 [1 favorite]
If you do decide to keep your kid in the backseat for a while longer, you might consider a back seat mirror that will let you make eye contact with each other while you talk. (Obviously, quick glances only for the driver who needs to keep an eye on the road.)
posted by metahawk at 5:09 PM on August 10
posted by metahawk at 5:09 PM on August 10
When my children were about that age, I had a Ford Ranger pickup with only jump seats in the back. Those jump seats only had lap (not shoulder) belts. No way were they riding sideways without proper restraints. I disabled the air bag and had them sit in a booster seat in the front. My boys were in the 90th percentile for height and one for weight. I spoke to the local police chief who was okay with the setup.
I don't know about the percentages of risk, but I felt comfortable with the practical risk. I think that part of the equation is your driving skill and style. Although you cannot do anything about the other drivers, you can drive defensively, slowly, and with consideration to your equipment, the weather, and the road conditions. I have never been involved in an accident or fender bender while I was at the wheel. Obviously that is part luck, but part my ability to focus on the road, on the driving.
I applaud your goal of better communication with your child, but consider if that better talking will be distracting. Being in the back is probably statistically better, but being in the back does not eliminate the risks. Get hit head on sitting in the back in a car seat without a Hans Device will likely end badly like Dale Sr.
I cannot suggest what you should do, but I can say that I would likely let my 9 yo who was physically above average in size sit in the front.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:20 PM on August 10
I don't know about the percentages of risk, but I felt comfortable with the practical risk. I think that part of the equation is your driving skill and style. Although you cannot do anything about the other drivers, you can drive defensively, slowly, and with consideration to your equipment, the weather, and the road conditions. I have never been involved in an accident or fender bender while I was at the wheel. Obviously that is part luck, but part my ability to focus on the road, on the driving.
I applaud your goal of better communication with your child, but consider if that better talking will be distracting. Being in the back is probably statistically better, but being in the back does not eliminate the risks. Get hit head on sitting in the back in a car seat without a Hans Device will likely end badly like Dale Sr.
I cannot suggest what you should do, but I can say that I would likely let my 9 yo who was physically above average in size sit in the front.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:20 PM on August 10
One thing to keep in mind is that the idea of kids being allowed to sit in the front is catching. I have a friend who lets her 9-year-old ride there, and because they see their friend doing it, I've had to have so very many conversations with my own kid about how they're not allowed. Explaining the risks (so it doesn't just seem like something to rebel against) without making them actively scared for their friend's life is a fine balance, and honestly, in addition to worrying for her kid, I really wish my friend would just help hold the collective line on "kids in the back." I'm sure other adults see things like that, or get worn down by their kids asking about things like that, and rationalize it must be okay since someone else is doing it. I can tell you're putting lots of thought and consideration into this, but something like the airbag being disabled is not at all obvious from outside the car. I've been trying to have a conversation with my friend about her kid–who is bigger and taller, but not anything like 5'0" or even over 100lbs–and this is actually the first it's occurring to me that she might turn off the airbag. (That's a comforting thought, so thanks.) I realize that maybe it's not fair to want everyone to follow the same safety rules I do, particularly when individual factors like the child's size and self-control come into play, but I can absolutely see something like this spreading through a peer group without any risk-analysis context.
posted by teremala at 4:05 AM on August 11 [5 favorites]
posted by teremala at 4:05 AM on August 11 [5 favorites]
Your question was on my mind still this morning, probably because my oldest is belatedly working on getting his driver’s license and about to turn 19.
The thing is, besides that I don’t think it’s really, really legal in Ontario, I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of “more fun” being the measure for safety stuff. It is more fun to ride a bike or a scooter with no helmet; it’s more fun on a motorcycle to zip in and out of traffic on the 401 rather than staying in a lane; it’s more fun to drive 130 on the open road. I will admit I am a bit of a stick in the mud on this but I really have been very consistent with my kids that safety trumps fun ( vis a vis equipment and rules) if you have to make a choice.
You may want to consider the long-term message to your kid if most kids (like mine) follow the rule which is backseat until 13 years old but you don’t.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:35 AM on August 11 [2 favorites]
The thing is, besides that I don’t think it’s really, really legal in Ontario, I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of “more fun” being the measure for safety stuff. It is more fun to ride a bike or a scooter with no helmet; it’s more fun on a motorcycle to zip in and out of traffic on the 401 rather than staying in a lane; it’s more fun to drive 130 on the open road. I will admit I am a bit of a stick in the mud on this but I really have been very consistent with my kids that safety trumps fun ( vis a vis equipment and rules) if you have to make a choice.
You may want to consider the long-term message to your kid if most kids (like mine) follow the rule which is backseat until 13 years old but you don’t.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:35 AM on August 11 [2 favorites]
I've done social work in a level 1 trauma center, so I've had plenty of experience working with families and children who found out in an accident why they really want kids below 13 to be in the back seat.
1. Air bags deploy with significant force. It is not a pillow. It is a rapidly expanding contained explosion that a body hits that is better than one hitting plastic, metal, glass and whatever else at high collsion speed. It can break bones all over you, especially in the face and chest. It isn't pretty.
2. Kids can get spinal injuries in ways that adults are more protected from and there can be additional complications with growth. Also something you really really really want to avoid.
3. Without airbags you have a greater risk of ejection and head injuries and all kinds of other stuff that can happen with improper seat belt use.
The cdc has a guide here
Honestly I'm pro backseat forever at this point in my life. Yeah maybe that's my work experience showing but the cost of my kid sitting in the back seat for a few more years versus the costs of something goes really wrong, it's stark. I'd rather things not go wrong.
I've defenantly seen many cases where the parent driver had alot of injuries and the back seat kids were just mildly injured.
But all accidents are different. And there is not guarantee that something awful couldn't happen to the back of the car that wouldn't affect the front. It's just overall it's safer to keep kids in the back.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:58 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
1. Air bags deploy with significant force. It is not a pillow. It is a rapidly expanding contained explosion that a body hits that is better than one hitting plastic, metal, glass and whatever else at high collsion speed. It can break bones all over you, especially in the face and chest. It isn't pretty.
2. Kids can get spinal injuries in ways that adults are more protected from and there can be additional complications with growth. Also something you really really really want to avoid.
3. Without airbags you have a greater risk of ejection and head injuries and all kinds of other stuff that can happen with improper seat belt use.
The cdc has a guide here
Honestly I'm pro backseat forever at this point in my life. Yeah maybe that's my work experience showing but the cost of my kid sitting in the back seat for a few more years versus the costs of something goes really wrong, it's stark. I'd rather things not go wrong.
I've defenantly seen many cases where the parent driver had alot of injuries and the back seat kids were just mildly injured.
But all accidents are different. And there is not guarantee that something awful couldn't happen to the back of the car that wouldn't affect the front. It's just overall it's safer to keep kids in the back.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:58 AM on August 11 [7 favorites]
I think you should ask your ex. I also think it’s not a horrible thing to do if you think it would, e.g., significantly improve your quality time. I deferred to my ex on this (I’m the worrywart) and some other safety related things, and he defers to me where it’s really important to me. The upshot was that our (tall) kid started riding in front at I think around 10.5? YMMV if your kid is very small/short.
posted by haptic_avenger at 11:57 AM on August 11
posted by haptic_avenger at 11:57 AM on August 11
From what I can tell, being in the front is about 30% more dangerous than being in the back.If you’re working on deciding via expected value here, you need this to be true to go forward with something that is 30% more dangerous:
(Base fatality driving chance x 0.3 x child fatality avoidance value < convenience of front seat
Where “convenience of front seat” is the effort it would have taken to have fun without the kid in the front seat.
Which can also be expressed as
Child fatality avoidance value < (3.33 x base fatality driving chance x (convenience of front seat)
If the base fatality driving chance is 1.98/100,000, base chance x 3.33 is about 0.0000659934.
So what’s left is to figure out if the convenience of the front seat is greater than (child fatality avoidance value)/0.0000659934. Maybe we should flip it back by multiplying both sides by that number:
0.0000659934 x child fatality avoidance value < convenience of front seat
So, now you can compare things more directly. If the avoiding the death of the child is 10,000 times more valuable than the convenience of the front seat, the above inequality will be true, and you should (according this method of risk assessment) put him in the front seat. But if avoiding his death is 100,000 times more valuable than the inconvenience, then it will be false, and you shouldn’t.
Maybe put another way, if he had to experience the unfun of a car ride in the back seat 100,000 times would it be better if he were just dead?
All this, however, ignores that nine is a fun age, and there are lots of low-effort ways to have fun with a nine-year-old outside of the car, so the utility of optimizing car fun may be low.
posted by ignignokt at 12:04 PM on August 11 [6 favorites]
Response by poster: Maybe put another way, if he had to experience the unfun of a car ride in the back seat 100,000 times would it be better if he were just dead?
Thanks! I appreciate that you answered my question (I feel like a lot of the replies didn't really get at what I thought I was asking, so maybe my q was not clear. I also feel like a lot of the replies are pretty judgmental of me as a parent and/or co-parent, in ways that feel frankly a bit out of line to me)
That said: I might be missing something but I think the math here is wrong? You write "unfun ride in a back seat 100,000 times", which suggests we are talking about 100,000 *rides*. But I think we are not thinking about that? We're talking about 100,000 *entire childhoods* of riding in the front. Does that seem right? Those numbers suggest different answers for me. (1/100,000 chance per ride is a much higher risk than 1/100,000 chance ever)
ALSO:
I should make clear something I only mentioned in passing above: What I'm curious about is putting my kid in the front *in cases where base rate risk is lowest* - off the highway, in the daytime, in good weather... That would presumably change this math quite a bit.
posted by ManInSuit at 12:26 PM on August 11
Thanks! I appreciate that you answered my question (I feel like a lot of the replies didn't really get at what I thought I was asking, so maybe my q was not clear. I also feel like a lot of the replies are pretty judgmental of me as a parent and/or co-parent, in ways that feel frankly a bit out of line to me)
That said: I might be missing something but I think the math here is wrong? You write "unfun ride in a back seat 100,000 times", which suggests we are talking about 100,000 *rides*. But I think we are not thinking about that? We're talking about 100,000 *entire childhoods* of riding in the front. Does that seem right? Those numbers suggest different answers for me. (1/100,000 chance per ride is a much higher risk than 1/100,000 chance ever)
ALSO:
I should make clear something I only mentioned in passing above: What I'm curious about is putting my kid in the front *in cases where base rate risk is lowest* - off the highway, in the daytime, in good weather... That would presumably change this math quite a bit.
posted by ManInSuit at 12:26 PM on August 11
Response by poster: (sorry to threadsit here, but from what I can tell, both ignignokt and I were wrong in our reading of those stats - they are not odds per ride or per lifetime, but per year. I think....)
posted by ManInSuit at 12:50 PM on August 11
posted by ManInSuit at 12:50 PM on August 11
I mean, it would be safer to drive nowhere and take the bus or walk. So I’m not sure at what point the marginal reduced risk of back seat v front seat makes sense to focus on as a mandate? The issue is that we accept driving as a necessity. At some point you do also have to value other things as necessities as well. Presumably the back seat is safer for all passengers so in theory you could make your kid ride in back forever.
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:01 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:01 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Based on the numbers above, I'd say it's definitely FINE to have your 9YO sit up front.
BUT - I'd recommend you reconsider your "safe" practices.
When kid in front seat:
NO phone usage - or at least turn on car mode and use for primarily GPS.
Do NOT drive with him in front seat if even below the legal limit of tipsy but you've had some drinks.
Do NOT drive with him in front seat if you're a little sleepy / tired from a long day of work or whatever.
Make sure the "passenger airbag off" light is on each time (those sensors can be faulty)
Make sure that you are comfortable with how snug the seatbelt is / adjust tightness / research seatbelt modification for small adults/booster seats/etc.
Every accident I've been in has had the confounding factor of me being both slightly less alert and slightly more distracted.
insert ramble here:
>I'm surprised and, tbh, kinda upset by all the posts that take some variation of "I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of “more fun” being the measure for safety stuff."
Askmetafilter is extremely unhelpful with risk calculation. Everyone (on askmi or not) tries to think about the risk, but in the end, they mostly just minimize risk as much as possible, and damned be to those that try to argue about if the risk reduction is per year, per car ride, or per lifetime... like it doesn't matter!
I got into an argument once about bike helmet safety. Bike helmets only help in a small minority of accidents - too hard of a collision, they compress too much. Too soft, they don't compress enough. And yet, everyone understands this, but everyone has an uncle that was hit without a helmet, or a dad who was hit with a helmet, and swears they'll always wear them. (If you care, most of my arguments against are that falling off the bike, the helmet doesn't help much, most studies are done on road bikers not upright bikers, and that cars drive closer and bikers drive more unsafe when they wear a helmet, and I hate them so much that wearing them makes me not want to bike at all. Most responses are that if I'm not going to wear a helmet, I shouldn't bike at all, but I digress.)
I'm also reminded of the risk/reward conversations we all had during covid. The attitudes online were mostly "damn the tiny risk, I'm being as cautious as possible because it's my duty"... I remember a long argument about someone being nervous about driving to a mountain cabin because they would have to stop for gas on the way and could expose someone at the gas station (or be exposed?).
Hope this perspective helps!
posted by bbqturtle at 4:02 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
BUT - I'd recommend you reconsider your "safe" practices.
When kid in front seat:
NO phone usage - or at least turn on car mode and use for primarily GPS.
Do NOT drive with him in front seat if even below the legal limit of tipsy but you've had some drinks.
Do NOT drive with him in front seat if you're a little sleepy / tired from a long day of work or whatever.
Make sure the "passenger airbag off" light is on each time (those sensors can be faulty)
Make sure that you are comfortable with how snug the seatbelt is / adjust tightness / research seatbelt modification for small adults/booster seats/etc.
Every accident I've been in has had the confounding factor of me being both slightly less alert and slightly more distracted.
insert ramble here:
>I'm surprised and, tbh, kinda upset by all the posts that take some variation of "I’m just uncomfortable with the idea of “more fun” being the measure for safety stuff."
Askmetafilter is extremely unhelpful with risk calculation. Everyone (on askmi or not) tries to think about the risk, but in the end, they mostly just minimize risk as much as possible, and damned be to those that try to argue about if the risk reduction is per year, per car ride, or per lifetime... like it doesn't matter!
I got into an argument once about bike helmet safety. Bike helmets only help in a small minority of accidents - too hard of a collision, they compress too much. Too soft, they don't compress enough. And yet, everyone understands this, but everyone has an uncle that was hit without a helmet, or a dad who was hit with a helmet, and swears they'll always wear them. (If you care, most of my arguments against are that falling off the bike, the helmet doesn't help much, most studies are done on road bikers not upright bikers, and that cars drive closer and bikers drive more unsafe when they wear a helmet, and I hate them so much that wearing them makes me not want to bike at all. Most responses are that if I'm not going to wear a helmet, I shouldn't bike at all, but I digress.)
I'm also reminded of the risk/reward conversations we all had during covid. The attitudes online were mostly "damn the tiny risk, I'm being as cautious as possible because it's my duty"... I remember a long argument about someone being nervous about driving to a mountain cabin because they would have to stop for gas on the way and could expose someone at the gas station (or be exposed?).
Hope this perspective helps!
posted by bbqturtle at 4:02 PM on August 11 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I also live in Toronto, and am the parent of a pre-teen. I've been letting my kid sit in the front seat since she was about 10. This is while we're driving around the city (so at pretty low speeds, considering TO traffic); usually when we're on a highway she's in the backseat since her dad is with us in the front seat.
One thing I've learned over the past decade or so on the internet is that Americans are really weird about car seats and keeping kids in the backseat until they are quite old. I don't understand it, but it seems to be a cultural thing. It does seem a bit odd to me considering how much more they drive in the US, and how they have many more large SUVs and trucks (both of which obviously cause more collisions / serious injuries). Not to mention how many more guns they have.
(Frankly, living in the city I think your kid is more likely to be seriously injured by a car if he's walking on a sidewalk or riding a bike; but I don't think people would suggest keeping him at home where's he always "safe".)
All I can tell you is that it's perfectly legal to have your kid in the front seat in Ontario, and in my experience MANY families in Toronto (including mine) make that choice. I know I'm not answering your question about relative risk, but I wanted to reply due to the overwhelming number of responses that seem to be questioning your responsibility as a parent. I'm sure you're a good and responsible parent.
posted by barnoley at 6:53 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
One thing I've learned over the past decade or so on the internet is that Americans are really weird about car seats and keeping kids in the backseat until they are quite old. I don't understand it, but it seems to be a cultural thing. It does seem a bit odd to me considering how much more they drive in the US, and how they have many more large SUVs and trucks (both of which obviously cause more collisions / serious injuries). Not to mention how many more guns they have.
(Frankly, living in the city I think your kid is more likely to be seriously injured by a car if he's walking on a sidewalk or riding a bike; but I don't think people would suggest keeping him at home where's he always "safe".)
All I can tell you is that it's perfectly legal to have your kid in the front seat in Ontario, and in my experience MANY families in Toronto (including mine) make that choice. I know I'm not answering your question about relative risk, but I wanted to reply due to the overwhelming number of responses that seem to be questioning your responsibility as a parent. I'm sure you're a good and responsible parent.
posted by barnoley at 6:53 PM on August 11 [2 favorites]
Just as another reference for you, Australia has relatively strict rules around car safety, particularly things like seat belts and child restraints. Generally, children can sit in the front seat of a car from the age of seven with no other requirements (booster seats are recommended for children under 145cm tall). Note that most cars in Australia do not have the ability to disable any airbags. Under seven, children can sit in the front of a car with no rear seat or if the rear seat is filled with children also under seven but they must use an approved child restraint regardless of where they sit.
I think a 9 year-old in the front seat is fine in most situations. Risk varies greatly based on conditions when it comes to car travel, so use your judgment as to when they should be in the back. More importantly, make sure they wear their seat belt at all times!
posted by dg at 8:37 PM on August 11 [1 favorite]
I think a 9 year-old in the front seat is fine in most situations. Risk varies greatly based on conditions when it comes to car travel, so use your judgment as to when they should be in the back. More importantly, make sure they wear their seat belt at all times!
posted by dg at 8:37 PM on August 11 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Several deleted. Please focus on answering the question and helping OP, which is the purpose of Ask Metafilter. If your impulse is to be insulting and judgmental, just pass this one up. The question is Are there sources on relative risk of front seat vs back? Ways to think about this risk/reward choice? (Also, OP, you have asked about ways to think about it, so you will get different perspectives, which is fine as long as they are respectful and address the question. If you don't want that, please be careful about the phrasing you use in the future.)
posted by taz (staff) at 2:27 AM on August 12 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 2:27 AM on August 12 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 12:11 PM on August 10 [5 favorites]