What are the stats on booster seat effectiveness, as far as injury prevention/reduction in an accident? If they're really staggering, then I guess I can get behind booster seat regulation. However, if they're just reducing by a fraction an already small chance of injury, then I say let it go.

I know we're supposed to go to any lengths to protect our kids and all, but this whole car seat/booster thing is getting ridiculous. Seems like we're edging ever closer to the point when the first time a kid sits in the front seat of a car, unfettered by anything but a seatbelt, will be for her first driving lesson.

Agree with newsahm about driving age. Also, if kids are supposed to ride in booster seats until age 11, that's going to make carpool/activities a PITA for a long time.

Finally, I still don't get why there aren't seatbelts on schoolbuses if we're so freaking concerned about the safety of children in moving vehicles.

"Finally, I still don't get why there aren't seatbelts on schoolbuses if we're so freaking concerned about the safety of children in moving vehicles."

Cost. On an individual basis, the average parent will pay an extra $30 to protect her own child - then she'll drive while speaking on her cell phone and increase the risk of injury that she thinks she reduced by purchasing the safest carseat on the market. The cost of adding seatbelts to schoolbuses would be borne by taxpayers, generally. Few if any communities have the stomach for that additional cost multiplied by a fleet of 200 or more schoolbuses.

There’s convincing evidence that boosters, used with lap/shoulder belts, offer the safest way for kids to ride in vehicles once they outgrow child restraints, usually at age 4. Using boosters lowers injury risk by 59 percent compared
with belts alone, a 2003 study by the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia found. None of the 4-7 year-olds in boosters.

School buses use "compartmentalization" to keep a child in a bus seat. This is why the seats are very high and padded.
had any injuries to the abdomen, neck, spine, or back.

Mom and CPS Technician

THANK YOU for pointing out that booster need is a height issue. I am frustrated that most laws regarding boosters are weight based. I have a tall, slender OrganicKid. She's already 5' at 10. But, if I was following the state guidelines, she'd still need a booster, because she's only about 75 lbs. She's built just like her dad (who is 6'6" and didn't hit 200 lbs himself until he was 25 years old!). We were so glad when she hit 8 (the law in NC) and we were able to lose the booster. It just made her terribly uncomfortable with her height. And, if we followed the 80-lb guideline, heck, she'd probably need a booster when she learns to drive! Okay, maybe not. But still, the regulations (if there are any) should be based on height not weight. I agree with newsahm. Where's the evidence that boosters make a significant difference?

Found this Jama article from about five years ago:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/289/21/2835

1.8% of children ages 4-7 in Jama's study were injured in car accidents. For kids in boosters, percentage was .77%, for kids in seat belts alone, percentage was about 1.9%.

If I'm reading this right, there's about a 2% chance your kid will get injured in an accident if she's in a seatbelt alone, and about a 1% chance if she's in a booster. There's also evidence that being in a booster decreases the risks of certain types of injuries (specifically, abdominal injuries). The study didn't list how severe any of the injuries in the study were, or whether a booster reduces the severity of injuries.

Based on these stats, laws requiring all kids to be in boosters seems like overkill to me. What's wrong with letting parents decide whether the 1% difference in risk is worth it?

"What's wrong with letting parents decide whether the 1% difference in risk is worth it?"

Reducing the risk of injury from 2% to 1% is not a "1% difference in risk."

It's a 50% difference. IOW, the booster seat means she is 50% less likely to be injured than if she just wore a seatbelt.

That said, I didn't read the study, and I'm sure there's all kinds of things unaccounted or not corrected for (severity of the crash, type of crash, type of vehicle, size of child, seat placement, correct installation, etc.)

The Compass is a bad fit? Really? Did they test it with a kid/dummy that isn't slouching or is average weight and not overweight? I've got a 6-year old (48 inches), bought my Compass about the time of their manufacture dates used, and it goes perfectly across the hips. Exactly where it's supposed to go. I know this because I still buckle him in. I'm wondering about the methodology and the dimensions of the dummies used.

And shouldn't they test across a range of sizes before rating these things? Especially as more and more states enact standards. They're expected to stay in them for a while, so they should still work right across a range of sizes to get the recommendation. (And I have my doubts about some of these recommendations for boosters without backs that don't position the shoulder strap. Major injury possibility there.)

"It's a 50% difference. IOW, the booster seat means she is 50% less likely to be injured than if she just wore a seatbelt."

Yes, I understand that. My point was that, even if the risk of not using a booster is double that of using one, you're still talking about only one percentage point difference. The chance of being injured is still quite small.

To put it another way, if the study said the risk of injury was 50% without a booster and 25% with a booster, I'd be a lot more supportive of booster seat laws. Same percentage of reduction in risk, but since you're starting with a much higher chance of injury in the first place, that 50% reduction is, in my opinion, much more significant.

In addition to worrying about whether you have the right booster seat, here's an article that ought to grab your attention:

http://writingfrontier.com/2008/09/08/childs-play/