Child's booster seat in bucket seats?
Discussion
turboteeth said:
Might it be something to do with the seatbelt position preventing it being unplugged properly in the event of an accident rather than the seat mounting being incompatible?
That is the most plausible argument put forward, ie. the seatbelt is INSIDE of the bolsters (rather than outside and going across the top of both bolsters), so does that mean somehow that a child seat/bolster (in an accident) could jam against it to prevent the seatbelt release?I don't know the answer, but it's a theory at least?
Hi
Sorry for not replying earlier; away from civilisation for a while.
Actually that's a fib. I was waiting for a reasoned discourse to return, rather than having people slag off informed opinion with negative comments which brought nothing to the table. There's something about forums that brings out the horns in people. I dislike the vitriol intensely - I forget who once said "violent [& name calling, I might add] is the product of an exhausted mind".
Dreamcar, thanks for your comments. I'm incredulous that others would rather take the opinion of a forum's contributors, rather than Porsche. After all, Porsche have to do due diligence on ALL aspects of their products, they are not going to risk anything, nor should any purchaser, if there is the slight risk of child injury/death! Even arguing that you can use booster seats in older cars brings me out in a cold sweat: the driver may drive responsibly BUT the significant other driver may not!
Having lost a four year old family member, due to a wholly preventable action (not by our family, I must stress), I have more than a little skin in this discussion!
Bungle & Turboteeth, your latest comments may well have nailed the reason for Porsche's SBS warnings. Looking at the picture in Bungle's original enquiry, it looks as though the seatbelt might cut across the throat of a minor sat In SBSs, when involved in a frontal, or sideswipe collision. Of course, this is only a theory, other theories may carry equal, or greater weight.
Peace & love to you all.
Sorry for not replying earlier; away from civilisation for a while.
Actually that's a fib. I was waiting for a reasoned discourse to return, rather than having people slag off informed opinion with negative comments which brought nothing to the table. There's something about forums that brings out the horns in people. I dislike the vitriol intensely - I forget who once said "violent [& name calling, I might add] is the product of an exhausted mind".
Dreamcar, thanks for your comments. I'm incredulous that others would rather take the opinion of a forum's contributors, rather than Porsche. After all, Porsche have to do due diligence on ALL aspects of their products, they are not going to risk anything, nor should any purchaser, if there is the slight risk of child injury/death! Even arguing that you can use booster seats in older cars brings me out in a cold sweat: the driver may drive responsibly BUT the significant other driver may not!
Having lost a four year old family member, due to a wholly preventable action (not by our family, I must stress), I have more than a little skin in this discussion!
Bungle & Turboteeth, your latest comments may well have nailed the reason for Porsche's SBS warnings. Looking at the picture in Bungle's original enquiry, it looks as though the seatbelt might cut across the throat of a minor sat In SBSs, when involved in a frontal, or sideswipe collision. Of course, this is only a theory, other theories may carry equal, or greater weight.
Peace & love to you all.
Robograd said:
Hi
Sorry for not replying earlier; away from civilisation for a while.
Actually that's a fib. I was waiting for a reasoned discourse to return, rather than having people slag off informed opinion with negative comments which brought nothing to the table. There's something about forums that brings out the horns in people. I dislike the vitriol intensely - I forget who once said "violent [& name calling, I might add] is the product of an exhausted mind".
Dreamcar, thanks for your comments. I'm incredulous that others would rather take the opinion of a forum's contributors, rather than Porsche. After all, Porsche have to do due diligence on ALL aspects of their products, they are not going to risk anything, nor should any purchaser, if there is the slight risk of child injury/death! Even arguing that you can use booster seats in older cars brings me out in a cold sweat: the driver may drive responsibly BUT the significant other driver may not!
Having lost a four year old family member, due to a wholly preventable action (not by our family, I must stress), I have more than a little skin in this discussion!
Bungle & Turboteeth, your latest comments may well have nailed the reason for Porsche's SBS warnings. Looking at the picture in Bungle's original enquiry, it looks as though the seatbelt might cut across the throat of a minor sat In SBSs, when involved in a frontal, or sideswipe collision. Of course, this is only a theory, other theories may carry equal, or greater weight.
Peace & love to you all.
The problem is, new cars may be safer but not everyone can afford a brand new car (are 4 X 4s still safer in a frontal crash as they ride over smaller cars?).Sorry for not replying earlier; away from civilisation for a while.
Actually that's a fib. I was waiting for a reasoned discourse to return, rather than having people slag off informed opinion with negative comments which brought nothing to the table. There's something about forums that brings out the horns in people. I dislike the vitriol intensely - I forget who once said "violent [& name calling, I might add] is the product of an exhausted mind".
Dreamcar, thanks for your comments. I'm incredulous that others would rather take the opinion of a forum's contributors, rather than Porsche. After all, Porsche have to do due diligence on ALL aspects of their products, they are not going to risk anything, nor should any purchaser, if there is the slight risk of child injury/death! Even arguing that you can use booster seats in older cars brings me out in a cold sweat: the driver may drive responsibly BUT the significant other driver may not!
Having lost a four year old family member, due to a wholly preventable action (not by our family, I must stress), I have more than a little skin in this discussion!
Bungle & Turboteeth, your latest comments may well have nailed the reason for Porsche's SBS warnings. Looking at the picture in Bungle's original enquiry, it looks as though the seatbelt might cut across the throat of a minor sat In SBSs, when involved in a frontal, or sideswipe collision. Of course, this is only a theory, other theories may carry equal, or greater weight.
Peace & love to you all.
Hi Chris,
You raise a very valid point there. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer.
All I can say is life's a learning curve, both for people & & for legislation. Sadly, safety legislation tends to be retrospective & follows on from the waste of a precious life in a lot of cases. We all have first class degrees in hindsight: perhaps Porsche's piranhas (aka sales people) should has a matter legal prudence warn prospective buyers of two seater cars that children under 12 should not travel in their cars, without the fitment of Isofix fittings & an airbag isolator. I don't know!
I hope others will contribute their own considered views on the subject for discussion.
Thanks for your input,
Rob
You raise a very valid point there. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer.
All I can say is life's a learning curve, both for people & & for legislation. Sadly, safety legislation tends to be retrospective & follows on from the waste of a precious life in a lot of cases. We all have first class degrees in hindsight: perhaps Porsche's piranhas (aka sales people) should has a matter legal prudence warn prospective buyers of two seater cars that children under 12 should not travel in their cars, without the fitment of Isofix fittings & an airbag isolator. I don't know!
I hope others will contribute their own considered views on the subject for discussion.
Thanks for your input,
Rob
woollyjoe said:
I'm not passing judgement - my dad used a booster seat with me growing up but we never had an accident.
One believes products sold to be safe and trust the "system' to protect us - why would the Govt allow the sale of boosters if they are unsafe? It should never have been invented. Govt now rectifying this by banning the sale of them.
It is not the case to say it is safer than nothing, because complete seat solutions were available. booster seats were borne out of economics - not safety:
1. Booster seats raise the height so that the lower seat belt correctly goes round the waist of little ones, but the top belt section is not altered correctly. This is one reason why a booster seat is dangerous.
2. The second reason, is that adult seats do not offer the protection young children need for the rest of their body - namely their head, and namely side impact.
As to why Porsche state not to use child seats at all in buckets seems obvious to me - they don't fit reliably.
I'm sharing what I have learned in the hope it helps inform others not to use booster seats. If I was to use one with my son with the knowledge my father didn't have, then I am simply gambling that i won't have an accident.
I thought that boosters raised the strap across the neck? New 'backed' boosters look a bit like bigger forward facing seats as they provide protection to the head from side impacts.One believes products sold to be safe and trust the "system' to protect us - why would the Govt allow the sale of boosters if they are unsafe? It should never have been invented. Govt now rectifying this by banning the sale of them.
It is not the case to say it is safer than nothing, because complete seat solutions were available. booster seats were borne out of economics - not safety:
1. Booster seats raise the height so that the lower seat belt correctly goes round the waist of little ones, but the top belt section is not altered correctly. This is one reason why a booster seat is dangerous.
2. The second reason, is that adult seats do not offer the protection young children need for the rest of their body - namely their head, and namely side impact.
As to why Porsche state not to use child seats at all in buckets seems obvious to me - they don't fit reliably.
I'm sharing what I have learned in the hope it helps inform others not to use booster seats. If I was to use one with my son with the knowledge my father didn't have, then I am simply gambling that i won't have an accident.
chriscoates81 said:
woollyjoe said:
I'm not passing judgement - my dad used a booster seat with me growing up but we never had an accident.
One believes products sold to be safe and trust the "system' to protect us - why would the Govt allow the sale of boosters if they are unsafe? It should never have been invented. Govt now rectifying this by banning the sale of them.
It is not the case to say it is safer than nothing, because complete seat solutions were available. booster seats were borne out of economics - not safety:
1. Booster seats raise the height so that the lower seat belt correctly goes round the waist of little ones, but the top belt section is not altered correctly. This is one reason why a booster seat is dangerous.
2. The second reason, is that adult seats do not offer the protection young children need for the rest of their body - namely their head, and namely side impact.
As to why Porsche state not to use child seats at all in buckets seems obvious to me - they don't fit reliably.
I'm sharing what I have learned in the hope it helps inform others not to use booster seats. If I was to use one with my son with the knowledge my father didn't have, then I am simply gambling that i won't have an accident.
I thought that boosters raised the strap across the neck? New 'backed' boosters look a bit like bigger forward facing seats as they provide protection to the head from side impacts.One believes products sold to be safe and trust the "system' to protect us - why would the Govt allow the sale of boosters if they are unsafe? It should never have been invented. Govt now rectifying this by banning the sale of them.
It is not the case to say it is safer than nothing, because complete seat solutions were available. booster seats were borne out of economics - not safety:
1. Booster seats raise the height so that the lower seat belt correctly goes round the waist of little ones, but the top belt section is not altered correctly. This is one reason why a booster seat is dangerous.
2. The second reason, is that adult seats do not offer the protection young children need for the rest of their body - namely their head, and namely side impact.
As to why Porsche state not to use child seats at all in buckets seems obvious to me - they don't fit reliably.
I'm sharing what I have learned in the hope it helps inform others not to use booster seats. If I was to use one with my son with the knowledge my father didn't have, then I am simply gambling that i won't have an accident.
I understand & get your points: I was sorely troubled when told that without the fitting of Isofix & airbag isolator no child should sit in the passenger! If I'd known prior to order lockdown I would have added Porsche's option at ~£125: after purchase the cost of retrofit was £600!!!
I have no idea why Porsche ban 'child restraint systems' in SBS; nor why the government is/has taken steps to ban booster seats. In this case, all is conjecture & speculation. Again, my take on boosters on SBS is that with the booster a child is raised but because the seat belt would go over the top of the extended thorax lip ( if that is describing it properly) it is ill fitting, a bit like wearing an old non- tensioning seatbelt. They were lethal if not adjusted tightly across the chest & led to today's pre-tensioned devices we use today.
Is the above a reasonable answer? I certainly don't know. I'm sure it isn't the complete answer.
I think one of the big problems with booster seats is the lack of side impact protection and also if say the child falls asleep they can slump over the seat belt which is I imagine incredibly dangerous if they're in that position if the car has an accident. Kids heads are much bigger relative to their bodies than an adults so I think side impact/whiplash is much more of an issue for them.
Cheib said:
I think one of the big problems with booster seats is the lack of side impact protection and also if say the child falls asleep they can slump over the seat belt which is I imagine incredibly dangerous if they're in that position if the car has an accident. Kids heads are much bigger relative to their bodies than an adults so I think side impact/whiplash is much more of an issue for them.
Cheib,Yet another entirely plausible reason, we simply don't know & we are unlikely to find out either, I'm afraid.
On another matter Cheib, spell check on my device keeps coming up all Cherbourg on me, when trying to type you in!!
Cheers, thanks for your thoughts.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Oh dear,
I've praised cmoose on occasion but here, dear boy, the a**e rests with you. You have form for agitation on here, on something so important as a minors life, please take your vitriol elsewhere. You are not adding to the discourse, in any way, shape, or form.
The reasons for Porsche's decision on SBS & child restraint is multifaceted: witness the numerous 'possible' reasons posited on here before your gauche intervention. If you've nothing positive to add to the subject, take your frustrations elsewhere: a cold shower may be in order.
I've praised cmoose on occasion but here, dear boy, the a**e rests with you. You have form for agitation on here, on something so important as a minors life, please take your vitriol elsewhere. You are not adding to the discourse, in any way, shape, or form.
The reasons for Porsche's decision on SBS & child restraint is multifaceted: witness the numerous 'possible' reasons posited on here before your gauche intervention. If you've nothing positive to add to the subject, take your frustrations elsewhere: a cold shower may be in order.
No need to be so hysterical, dreamcar and robograd.
Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
braddo said:
No need to be so hysterical, dreamcar and robograd.
Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
If adults want to take risks with their lives, that's fine as that is their informed choice.Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
It is NOT right to subject young children to uneceesary risks, particularly when a car manufacturer has warned of the danger of so doing. You, like cmoose and others clearly think you are better informed and more knowledgeable than Porsche. I can't believe anyone with more than two brain cells would take your stupidity seriously.
I have met some idiots over the years on the interweb, but this thread has more than it's fair share.
Yes, again another perspective.
But, presumably in taking part in the highlighted pursuits some form of due diligence is carried out before the parent hands the child over, or training/instruction of the child is undertaken to minimise any danger. We as adults pursue risk: that part of why we drive fast, I should imagine. I have exposed myself to any number of life threatening situations through hobbies of mountain biking & mountaineering, all over the World. That's MY decision, that consequences are mine.
Putting a passive child into a known area of danger is negligence of the highest order - why expose a child to such a risk: a risk that not only involves the subject but also the not inconsiderable other: driver error, the drunk, the popped-up druggy, the distracted OAP, plus any other factor that causes an accident. Come on, is your child worth the macho expression of your ego!
Of course, I know, before the warriors unleash a maelstrom of extreme bitterness, that the above statement borders on the extreme. But you know what, from my perspective so are the testosterone fuelled tirades of hurt egos paraded here.
It's not hysteria that drives me, dreamcar will have his reasons, it's the crass & ill conceived comments on the life of the vulnerable & innocent. If your child is playing around near a point of possible danger, do you not take action.
I rest my case, once again other opinions may hold sway!
But, presumably in taking part in the highlighted pursuits some form of due diligence is carried out before the parent hands the child over, or training/instruction of the child is undertaken to minimise any danger. We as adults pursue risk: that part of why we drive fast, I should imagine. I have exposed myself to any number of life threatening situations through hobbies of mountain biking & mountaineering, all over the World. That's MY decision, that consequences are mine.
Putting a passive child into a known area of danger is negligence of the highest order - why expose a child to such a risk: a risk that not only involves the subject but also the not inconsiderable other: driver error, the drunk, the popped-up druggy, the distracted OAP, plus any other factor that causes an accident. Come on, is your child worth the macho expression of your ego!
Of course, I know, before the warriors unleash a maelstrom of extreme bitterness, that the above statement borders on the extreme. But you know what, from my perspective so are the testosterone fuelled tirades of hurt egos paraded here.
It's not hysteria that drives me, dreamcar will have his reasons, it's the crass & ill conceived comments on the life of the vulnerable & innocent. If your child is playing around near a point of possible danger, do you not take action.
I rest my case, once again other opinions may hold sway!
Edited by Robograd on Sunday 29th January 19:00
braddo said:
No need to be so hysterical, dreamcar and robograd.
Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
I'm with Braddo on this. It is an everyday activity to make judgements about my own and my children's safety, balanced with a set of life experiences and some practicality. My boys ski, ride bikes, play rugby and so on. Each of those often results in injury but the pros outweigh the cons. In car terms one could say that only the safest car would do and a Porsche would never be safe enough. One could do the school run inside a tank or maybe take a risk and only go with a Hummer. This is not a black or white thing, it's graduated. Parents manage risk for their children every day in a myriad of ways. If a child seat fits snugly in a modern Porsche's bucket seat, with the seatbelt in a safe position for the child, that is hardly out on the high-risk end of the spectrum, no matter what official Porsche guidance says.
For a bit of perspective, consider small kids who compete in motocross, or even BMX, or rugby, or kart racing.
Or surfing.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/ja...
As to Porsche being all knowing I do think that is flawed. It is much easier and more sensible for a manufacturer to make expedient decisions. In this instance to approve a child seat with anything other than isofix is probably heretical now. Also there must be no end of testing before anything gets approved and the cost vs benefit of testing and adapting bucket seats is not worth it. Thus, easier to say don't do it, clearly and categorically, no get out. If they are anything other than categorical they are leaving themselves open. That's doesn't make them correct, it makes them expedient. Taking my last point a step further, look at Porsche and the debates around N rated tyres, using the OEM battery etc etc. These things lock in aftesales and are tied to warranty; it's money not the finest of equipment that is at stake here.
So, if one can objectively reach their own view that is considered and balanced rather than blasé then I think that can be OK. I have carefully examined the seats in my cars, how they interact with child seats, where the belts sit, air bag, how far the seat goes back, side impact and so on. I've done that and decided that the set up works for my boys in my cars. I've also looked at the variety of child seats in cars on offer and I'm happy that the occasional usage of my bucket seat set up is likely better than many. And the boys love it. It's a judgement call.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Relatively unknown crash performance?? Your knowledge in car safety really is limited - but that explains your ridiculous stance on bucket seats I guess! Are you not aware that all cars have to have crash tests carried out to prove the safety for occupants both adult and children? And surprise surprise so do the seats. As a result of these thorough and scientific tests the car is certified safe. So are the seats. Clearly and obviously the sport bucket seats FAIL to meet the required standards of safety for use with child restraint systems hence the clear and unambiguous warning. I really don't know of a simpler way to get through to you that the seat warning is there for a real and proven reason. Ignore it at your child's peril, if you really are that reckless.
You also give the impression that Porsche sports cars are less safe than other cars. Wrong. There are two aspects to car safety, active and passive. Active relates to the ability of a car to avoid an accident in the first place, (do you remember Mercedes SUV's failing the moose swerve tests a few years back)? Sports cars are very good with regards to active safety. Passive safety refers to the ability of a car to protect the occupants in the event of a crash. The only thing that makes a sports car (or any car) less safe is the driver using the greater performance inappropriately.
Edited by dreamcar on Monday 30th January 07:17
dreamcar said:
Relatively unknown crash performance?? Are you not aware that all cars have to have crash tests carried out to prove the safety for occupants both adult and children? And surprise surprise so do the seats. As a result of these thorough and scientific tests the car is certified safe. So are the seats. Clearly and obviously the sport bucket seats FAIL to meet the required standards of safety for use with child restraint systems hence the clear and unambiguous warning.
You also give the impression that Porsche sports cars are less safe than other cars. Wrong. There are two aspects to car safety, active and passive. Active relates to the ability of a car to avoid an accident in the first place, (do you remember Mercedes SUV's failing the moose swerve tests a few years back)? Sports cars are very good with regards to active safety. Passive safety refers to the ability of a car to protect the occupants in the event of a crash. The only thing that makes a sports car (or any car) less safe is the driver using the greater performance inappropriately.
I don't know any other way of explaining that the warning is there for a reason, ignore it at your children's peril.
This is the crux of it, I don't believe any 911/boxster/Cayman has been ncap tested due to the low quantities sold. I'm not sure how any cars need to be sold before they legally require testing.You also give the impression that Porsche sports cars are less safe than other cars. Wrong. There are two aspects to car safety, active and passive. Active relates to the ability of a car to avoid an accident in the first place, (do you remember Mercedes SUV's failing the moose swerve tests a few years back)? Sports cars are very good with regards to active safety. Passive safety refers to the ability of a car to protect the occupants in the event of a crash. The only thing that makes a sports car (or any car) less safe is the driver using the greater performance inappropriately.
I don't know any other way of explaining that the warning is there for a reason, ignore it at your children's peril.
Edited by dreamcar on Monday 30th January 06:03
Edit: I wonder if the bucket seats thing is to do with having a harness instead on a normal belt and it's on there just incase?
Edited by chriscoates81 on Monday 30th January 06:46
chriscoates81 said:
This is the crux of it, I don't believe any 911/boxster/Cayman has been ncap tested due to the low quantities sold. I'm not sure how any cars need to be sold before they legally require testing.
Edit: I wonder if the bucket seats thing is to do with having a harness instead on a normal belt and it's on there just incase?
Porsche WILL have conducted crash tests, make no doubt about that. There is no way they would push an unsafe car on the market.Edit: I wonder if the bucket seats thing is to do with having a harness instead on a normal belt and it's on there just incase?
Edited by chriscoates81 on Monday 30th January 06:46
dreamcar said:
Porsche WILL have conducted crash tests, make no doubt about that. There is no way they would push an unsafe car on the market.
Sorry, after posting i realise how it sounds. I meant there doesnt seem to be anything you can do a like for like comparison with for safety. Im not sure if theres an alternative to ncap ratings or not.Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff