Talk:Child safety seat

message: Note:  We need a history of Child Safety Seats.
:History link provided, someone should take this information and integrate it into the article. --Ecksemmess 00:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first cars were manufactured and sold not in the early 1900's but already in the 1880's.--Big Bene (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Mind you, I'm fond of the place, but the main article's awfully, er,  Canadacentric--laws regarding child safety seats in different regions should be linked externally.  Pity I'm not the man for it.Nhrenton 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much Canada

message: Edited my prior comments in response to balls.
Mommy0406 05:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car seats Save Lives

message: * There are now sections to put in both US and Canadian laws and links if somebody can add them.
* There's a request for a section about child safety seat history, however I don't see the link for it, so this is a new section that will need to be researched and written.  I'm unfamiliar with the history so will let someone else start that one.
* Also, does anyone have pictures that are public domain to add to the article?  It would be nice to have a picture of each of the different kind of seats to place in the section where each is described. 
Mommy0406 05:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information needed 

message: How you present information can be wery important and in this case can aument fatal injuries instead of saving lifes.
People alot of times only looks for quick information and act from what they quickly finds, so it is important that on a page like this you give the best recommendations possible first and most clearly. Hope you know that the best recommendations today is to follow the recommendations used in Sweden which recommends to seat the child facing backwards until 4 years old.
So I think it is important that this page is changed to give the recommendations to place the children facing backwards until 25 kg and/or 4 years (or as logg as possible).
Regarding the comment on Steven Levitt's database study that suggest it is better to place the children in the car seat with a normal belt. that study does not regard the best option (rear facing) because Steven did not have access to that data in his study. I refere to personal email conversation with Steven Levitt, where he replies that he (as many other) thought it was not possible to put a child rear facing up to 4 years old, it is time to inform the world of the safest way for the childrens sake.
Niklar (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All this rear facing stuff assumes that you can safely drive with a screaming toddler in the back. For parents fortunate enough to have a child who doesn't do that, they're fortunate. For the rest of us,  no one has studied the effects of screaming toddlers on the attention of driving parents. However, there are numerous studies that show that distracted drivers a major cause of accidents. Perhaps we should focus on reducing accidents rather than marginal improvements on what happens when an accident occurs. philosofool (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the situation you are describing, or in general when you are alone in the car with a child, the recommendation from the authorities in Sweden is to put the babies rear facing in the front seat, but only if you can turn off the airbag. (in Swedish language: https://ntf.se/fragor-och-svar/barn-i-bil/placering-montering/ar-fram-eller-baksatet-sakrast-for-barnen/) 188.149.8.0 (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A responsability 

message: This has got to be the lowest rated article I have ever seen. Any suggestions for improvement? Marcus Qwertyus  23:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article ratings 

message: These devices looks brute, stupid and restraining, much like something BD*M. And from the "Critism" section "Levitt suggests that the available data does not support the necessity of forward facing child safety seats for children over two years old, arguing that the cheaper and simpler alternative of seat belts offers similar protection as forward facing seats". Why did you westerners not invent some simple portable harness that can be joined to seat belts, but rather these big curbersome devices? Can these be comfortable and pleasant for children? Won't it hampers contact between child and a not-driving parent? From an Asian's manner of view, I dare to query. 183.195.21.160 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can you westerners invented this 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Child safety seat. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CPS/newtips/pages/Tip2.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.which.co.uk/cars/safety/car-safety-and-child-seats/child-safety-week-2010/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: it is perplexing that the description of the "convertible seat" is tagged by a "citation needed" mark while the neighbouring paragraphs are untagged. its hard to think of a scientific type reliable source for this kind of distinction, yet this is one prominent feature you perceive when you go shopping for a child seat. tagging simple descriptions doesnt seem to be right. if theres a need for sources then that need arises for the whole article rather than for a trivial description within it. other types of child safety seats arent tagged for citation even though those descriptions (see the same section of the article) are not differing from this one. one could question the notability of these types of seats but that seems quite a natural way of describing the topic even though probably no scientific journal has ever received submissions on this topic. just because it is trivial or irrelevant from a physics/mechanical engineering point of view(that is from scientific POV) it might be still important enough for the average buyer/wiki reader to include in the article. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  section: Type  

message: i found no information in this article concerning the difference in effectiveness/safety of the isofix type that became common since 2002 and the earlier (still existing) safety belt held child seat. nor is this covered in the article about seat belts neither in the article about the isofix standard. there are cars still in use that were manufactured before the mandatory built in isofix fixture points - in these cars a child passanger is seated in the older type child safety seat, that is held in place by the built in safety belt intended for adult passengers. these older type child seats may vary in design, some of them have 5 point harness to hold the child in seat, but the seat itself is attached and fixed by the cars built in safety belt. i think it would be relevant to cover these and a comparison between them and the newer isofix type child seats, not just for a historical point of view but also because these are still used. 89.134.199.32 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing comparison of isofix and seat belt held child seat