Forward facing rear seats for 90 - Baby Seat???

On or around Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:29:16 +0100, Tim Hobbs <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>Sounds like it's not the same report, then. This one examines the stats for
>>two-car injury accidents 1996-2000, and scores cars according to the
>>statistical likelihood of death or serious injury from being in said
>>vehicle, standardised. Defender/Disco scores 1 (1% likelihood of
>>death/serious injury in 2-car injury accident), Volvo 900 3 (3%, etc),
>>Fourtrak 4, Suzuki SJ 6, and so on.

"Cars: Make and Model:
The Risk of Driver Injury in Great
Britain: 1996 – 2000"

dunno if that tallies.

>I still can't read it for some reason - could be my PDF reader is
>buggered.

mine keeps whinging about not being able to view pages online, then letting
me view them anyway. I think it's getting senile.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"'Tis a mad world, my masters" John Taylor (1580-1633) Western Voyage, 1

so Austin Shackles was, like...
>
> There were a series of adverts which gave the strong implication that
> if you drove a volvo it didn't matter what you drove into or what
> drove into you, *you'd* be safe, thanks to 27 air bags, and guess
> what, a rigid structure...(albeit with crumple zones on the edges).

This is possibly why motorcyclists (which is what I was for many years, my
only transport) hate Volvos so much. It can't be just coincidence that
asking any m/c rider which make of car came the closest to offing them, and
the answer is nearly always Volvo. I reckon the "look how safe you are in a
Volvo" campaign is to blame. People buy them and think they are
invulnerable, and then drive accordingly. Whether the driver is a
sandal-wearing vegan or a macho sales rep, the result is the same for the
other road users.

I've always said that the safest car is the one with no seat belts and a big
sharp metal spike in the centre of the steering wheel.

> personally, "drive a volvo into anything and you won't get hurt"
> didn't really do it for me as a message. I'd prefer "don't drive
> into things".

Indeed.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Fri, 16 Sep 2005 08:58:37 GMT, "Roger & Lorraine Martin"
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >Be really sure that you know what you are doing with aftermarket
> >seats, just bolting them through the floor without attaching them
> >to something that wont let go in an accident. Same goes for seatbelts
> >and their anchorage points. The forces on seat mountings is very
> >high in an accident - I used to have some figures somewhere about
> >the weight of a 10kg in a 50kph full stop accident, but for the life
> >of me I cant find them now. It was something in the region of half
> >a tonne in force. No doubt someone can work that one out. I know
> >it convinced me that I would never allow anyone to carry a child
> >in my car in their arms or on their lap.
>
> seat belt mountings are 7/16" UNF nuts welded to suitable reinforcing
plates
> and same welded or otherwise fixed under the floor. I'd tend to the view
> that for ordinary floors you want a minimum of 100x100x3 mm for your
> reinforcing, presuming space to fit it. In the event of a shunt, that
plate
> has to pull through the floor for the belt to fail.
>
> somewhere, I have specs for the forces that seatbelts/mounts should test
to,
> which are quite high as you say, and are also different depending on what
> kind of belt or what position on the belt.
>
> Oh, and WRT young children - holding onto the young child, with the adult
> belted, is about the best you can do if no better solution like a proper
> child seat is available. Much better than belting around the adult and
> child - the adult's weight against the belt rather tends to try and cut
the
> child in half.
>
> the "correct" solution isn't always possible. But you can try for
> least-damage.
>
>
Its over twenty years since Australia enacted legislation for
child restraints, baby capsules, booster seats, etc. and its done
wonders for reducing injuries and death to kids. But you still
get the odd fool wanting to hold a baby in their arms. When I
went back to the UK last year I was staggered at the number
of kids "roaming" around in cars with no seat belts on, or mothers
hanging onto kids standing in the front of a car. They should be
forced to go with Ambulance crews to pick up the pieces.

Most local councils even have baby capsules for hire in Aus.
which makes it fairly easy to protect your kids.

I think its illegal for a child under 12 to travel in the front seat
as well - maybe only air bag fitted cars as the air bag will break
a childs neck even in a low speed accident.

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for the input - I'm all ears.
>
> The main reason we are switching from the Golf is due the type of roads
> my wife now spends 80% of her time on - namely country 'B' roads/Single
> lane with passing points. She has nearly been wiped out twice now but
> idiots going too fast for the road and conditions. Being unable to see
> 'over' the hedges and therefor to see what's coming up is the one of
> the reason we felt a 90 would do the job.
>
> My son is 19months old so his seat is forward facing. I've tried it in
> the 90 and it fits as well as the Golf with no movement. Have'nt tried
> the middle seat yet - that will be done tomorrow.
>
> If we're still not convinced then I can see a 110 coming up...
>
> cheers,
> Gavin
>
This is a guide produced for Australia which is probably the country
which introduced compulsory seat belts back in the late 60s or 70s.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/public/pdf/child_restraints.pdf

Well, after much consideration we've decided to keep the Golf ....and
the 90. Result, I now have a project vehicle

cheers all for your contributions,

Gavin
'96 Disco ES 300tdi
'89 90 200tdi
'99 Golf 1.4s