Isofix.....

[LimeSlice]

I completely get what is being said in this thread, but the simple fact it is Illegal, we cannot choose what laws we do or do not follow.

Yes we can. We do it every day in fact. Having laws does not remove choice - the choice offered is to do xyz or not. If we choose not, the consequence is abc. It is still up to the individual to decide which path they will take, based on their own circumstance and reason.

For example, your husband is having a heart attack in the seat beside you - are you really going to be driving to the hospital at 60kmh? No, you aren't, even though speeding is illegal.
Do you always cross the road at a designated crossing? No, that would be impractical.

There are many, many examples of how we choose which (and how) we follow what laws.

[Phteven]

but considering the statistical differences for infant road deaths comparing Australia to euro, its a risk I think I'd be willing to take.

You're aware that there are a bunch of other variables yes? One of the biggest is distance to a hospital. In most parts of Europe they can usually have you in a hospital within 20 minutes of crashing. In Australia it can take emergency services over 20 minutes just to reach a high speed accident. That makes a huge difference to their statistics.
If you have a criminal finding against you it is very easy to make a civil case of negligence against you. The cost of defending yourself against such a case if bought by an insurance company or a government organisation would be prohibitive. You would be very likely to lose because you knowingly committed a criminal act and then you would probably be liable for the legal costs of the plaintiff as well as your own. If your defence was that it was a superior system then you would have to prove that by paying for testing/expert opinion.

[Astrid]

Yes we can. We do it every day in fact. Having laws does not remove choice - the choice offered is to do xyz or not. If we choose not, the consequence is abc. It is still up to the individual to decide which path they will take, based on their own circumstance and reason.

For example, your husband is having a heart attack in the seat beside you - are you really going to be driving to the hospital at 60kmh? No, you aren't, even though speeding is illegal.
Do you always cross the road at a designated crossing? No, that would be impractical.

There are many, many examples of how we choose which (and how) we follow what laws.

Personally to me there is a difference between a snap decision (eg speeding to save a life) and a thought out processing choosing to break the law. If my husband was dying I don't go "hey screw the law I will save him", breaking the law the does not even cross my mind.

[LimeSlice]

And many think the same way about the safety of their children in cars. That their safety is paramount, above any law saying they can't use a product that exists at a higher safety standard than what we have on offer here.
It is a fair comparison, I think.

[buliej]

You can see videos on You Tube of forward facing vs rear facing seats - run by sophisticated and legitimate labs - they make an extremely compelling case - and they have nothing to do with distance to the hospital etc - but rather severity of injury - ERF is so much safer! There are lots of articles about this - there are a number of people who are very passionate about car seats and safety who try to educate a wider population - if you google you could spend 2 days reading up on ERF vs FF. I agree with Lime Slice - at the end of the day, it's a choice so long as you are aware of the possible consequences. To me, the choice was a no brainer. As an aside (as it does not relate to the latter part of this discussion), statistically speaking ISOFIX car seats have a much lower rate of improper install as well. We move ours between cars so easily (our other car also has ISOFIX) and you can get is so tight and properly aligned level so easily. Personally, I think it's disgraceful that Australia is so far behind when it comes to ERF and ISOFIX and yet boasts about it's great car seats.

[Phteven]

I'm not sure that you tube will make great evidence if you are involved in a court case.

What is fair and logical often seems utterly irrelevant in courts.

[buliej]

I don't care about the court case - I care about the safety of my child and my child is much more likely to walk away from a crash with a couple of scratches when ERF - much better than a broken neck! and yes, that's one of the big differences. The weight of babies' and toddlers' heads will cause their neck to snap when FF and rear ended whereas this will not happen when ERF. It is also better for other crash positions or whatever the technical term is called. What am I being sued for and by who anyway in the hypothetical scenario?

** weight of their head as a proportion of total body weight / strength of neck

[Phteven]

What am I being sued for and by who anyway in the hypothetical scenario?

Caz there is a chance of legal action against the parents to re-coup any money paid for medical treatment by TAC (or equivalent in your state) if they are found to have been negligent in using a seat that is not Australian approved, as it is illegal. There hasn't been a case of this yet, but it is possible if someone decides they want to make a point or an example. All things to think about.

Insurance companies are always very keen to recoup losses and fond of poking about in car wreckage.

I'm going to assume that at some stage you have contacted the relevant authorities and ministers in your state with a polite and reasoned request to update the laws.

[onthefly]

Changes are already in the works
http://www.standards.org.au/OurOrgan...lease%20MR.pdf
It's just going to be a while before the actual standards are updated so it's legal.

[buliej]

I've written to Choice and commented on some Australian news program or newspaper that ran a piece/article about this - many people have - often it's people who have lived overseas and had children and then come here (still with young children) to learn they can't ERF and can't believe it. I think online communities/FB where there are sites that involve people from around the world have also opened the eyes of many as people (like myself) learn a lot of what the OS standards are and why. Somehow I hit upon this during my maternity leave when I was too tired to do anything else and learned heaps about car seats and ERF.

Elected officials have been contacted - there's an interesting quote from some politician in NSW (and I believe he's involved in road safety or something) that said "it's fine for parents to pick what has proven to be safer" or something like that - it was actually pointed out to him that he was wrong, as he didn't realize it is illegal to use an OS car seat...he back tracked but it wasn't very reassuring from a parent's perspective.

I'll risk not being paid for my wrecked car/having payment recaptured - should we be in an accident that is that bad, I'd rather be out the total cost of a car (or 2) than a child.

[Caz_88]

Buliej...... I think we have a similar philosophy..... if my child is that severely injured whilst ERF..... considering how damn safe it really is....... there's a good chance I'm not going to be alive for them to sue anyway...... just my 2 cents......

[buliej]

For those of you who want to see why some of us are so passionate about ERF, take a look at You Tube "Front facing or Rear facing? Car seat safety TRUE STORY crash test videos" - and if that's not enough to make you think about not ERF'ing your child, generally search front facing versus rear facing. I agree that these videos wouldn't support a court case (but expert testimony probably would) but they are eye opening.

[willow5]

I'm going to assume that at some stage you have contacted the relevant authorities and ministers in your state with a polite and reasoned request to update the laws.

I think my local government, and federal, the ACCC, Standards Australia, VicRoads and manufacturers are sick of hearing from me I'm very active in campaigning for ERF in Australia, and for changes to recommendations, laws and creating better education for parents and the public. Changes are happening, but not quick enough and in lots of stages, mostly due to red tape and money ...oh and inflated egos of Australian experts, I kid you not! I have a fb page committed to promoting ERF and general car seat safety and work closely with the creator of another page that has been around longer than myself. There are petitions circulating gaining support the more people learn.
Some manufacturers are more interested than others and are being proactive in trying to push for Standard requirement changes in order for type D seats to be produced, the rest are happy to stay providing minimum safety requirements only, as long as the profits are coming they are happy, and don't see the need to budge until they have to.

[buliej]

Thanks Willow - I mean that - I think what you are doing is so important. I'm going to try to find your FB page now (although I think I may already be "liker" as it sounds familiar).

[willow5]

buliej, I was going to PM you but your inbox is full

[buliej]

Just emptied it - please re-send!

[Astrid]

I think a lot of here do understand the passion and why you are going down the paths that you are. I certainly agree with ERF but I personally would not break the law by importing a seat and I especially would not retrofit an ISOFIX system to a car.

Just because we would not break the law, does not mean we don't agree that the car seat laws should be improved.

[LimeSlice]

Just read a media release from Standards Australia, and it says that the revision of the standard that will encompass ISOFIX will also allow for children <3 to remain rearfacing.

ISOFIX can be, and is often (overseas), safely retrofitted to a vehicle. It doesn't have to be built into the car when it is manufactured.