2 young sisters in coma after car crash in Kumamoto Pref

My first question when I see a story like this is whether the children in the back seat were wearing seat belts or not.

Either way, I hope they can come out of their comas and recover fully from their injuries.

The fact that the passengers in the back of the car fared much worse than those in the front probably means they weren't wearing seat belts.

I just saw both cars on NHK. One was a sedan, the other (the one the kids were riding in) was a kei car. The sedan smashed into the side of the kei, it's all caved in. The whole front of the larger car is wrecked.

They do very little against side-to-side motion.

Actually, there have been a number of studies suggesting that seat belts do afford protection to occupants in side impact collisions, as well. In addition, even more studies suggest that child seats or so-called junior seats provide even more protection to their occupants in side impact collisions. There is not question in my mind that both the 10 year old and the 4 year old should have been seated in such child seats and junior seats. In Japan, children under 6 are required by law to be seated in child seats.

Also, as a poster mentioned above, seat belts prevent occupants from being ejected from the vehicle. They also prevent the occupants from being sent flying around inside the vehicle. Both of these phenomenon also are major causes of injuries in automobile accidents.

Slumdog is right. The law states all children must be restrained by appropriate age/bodysize relevant child seating systems. Existing seatbelts must be utilized in a safe-as-possible manner when restaining children and may necessitate adjustment and or the use of supplementary aids(eg booster seats).

The onus is 100% on the adults in the car to ensure all children are safely restrained and having belts wrapping around little necks are acts of gross negligence.

Nothing is perfect, but we as responsible adults must use some nous when it comes to kids in cars - or anyone for that matter.

Perhaps in this unfortunate incident the kids were properly restained and we just don't know, but official police statistics indicate a woeful level of child restaint/seatbelt use in Japan.

Of course they were not wearing seat belts! If they were we would not be reading such a horrific article. Both kids were probably flung into the windscreen from the back seat. Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is cultural!

Here's the link to the TV news coverage of this accident. I still doubt that they were wearing seat belts in the backseat, but Frungy is right in suspecting that the girls' injuries were caused by a side impact. http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/videonews/fnn?a=20140510-00000319-fnn-soci

I'm 100% behind the idea of wearing seat belts. But the truth is they don't offer very much protection at all from side impacts, other than to perhaps prevent passengers from being thrown from the car.

It seems that this was a clear side-impact crash, not a forward collision (which is what seat belts are actually for protection against), so perhaps folks shouldn't be so quick to condemn the mother for taking (or possibly not taking) a common sense safety precaution that in the end might very well have done little to protect the kids from this kind of accident.

Looking at the video and judging by the damage done to the kei car as well as the larger sedan, the 57-year-old is likely facing a charge of driving too fast for that particular type of road. At most, the speed limit is 30km on a narrow rural road like that. Also, there are stop lines painted on the street for the road crossing the path of the road that crosses the bridge. Even without a stop sign, these lines indicate that the driver must yield to crossing traffic. Depending on who was driving on which road, someone obviously didn't stop when they should have.

Speed is the main culprit and not many car makers cater for strong side impact bars.

Signal lights or not, sign boards or otherwise, ANY intersection, SLOW DOWN to walking speed (<10km/h), LOOK before you drive past. The worst case you would get is just a small scare or angry stare, whether or not you have the right of way.

Hopefully the 2 little poor girls recover quickly.

Physics aside, I have driven in Japan for better than 10 years and never seen an unmarked intersection! White line and stop triangle indicating priority is equivalent to a red light! Someone is at fault here either one of the drivers or the local authority. I do hope the kids recover.

No they don't. They prevent ADULT occupants from being ejected from the vehicle. Children can and do often slip right out of seatbelts, or the seatbelt is sitting across the neck and breaks the neck or fractures the windpipe and they die.

Please read what I wrote. Seat belts, when used correctly with child seats or junior seats do prevent children from being thrown out of automobiles. They also prevent injuries to children inside the vehicles as well. This has been proven by study after study.

Your confidence in seatbelts for children is entirely misplaced.

Your seeming suggestion that children should not be restrained with seat belt, child seats and junior seats is misplaced, entirely incorrect and extremely dangerous. What would you have people do? Have their children sit on their laps or jump freely around the inside of cars? Appropriate child restraints in every vehicle is common sense and I can't see anyone having a reason for discouraging it.

I read what you wrote. You admit that children over 6 (i.e. both children in this case) don't legally need to be in child seats, so your entire "child seat" argument goes out the window.

Okay, you read what I wrote. Did you understand it? People of all ages need to be restrained in vehicles. It is illegal not to do so. For small children, a child seat is the safest option. For larger children, a junior seat is. So, in no way, shape or form does my argument 'go out the window'. If the woman had had a child seat for the 6 year old from the beginning, she would still be using some form of child restraint now, possibly the same seat depending on the size of the child.

Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned.

No, seat belts are not statistcally more dangerous than kids free roaming around an automobile. I cannot believe you are actually attempting to suggest that no restraint is safer than using seat belts. It is not. Anyway, above a couple of times, I clearly suggest that small children should be placed in child seats.

The legal age for car seats should be raised to 10

I agree. But, I would go as high as 12 years old. I also have a huge problem with the fact that their are no fines or jail time for drivers that do not use child seats for children in their cars. They merely get their licenses suspended, which is not nearly strict enough.

but even with car seats a side-impact like that can easily kill.

Yes, lots of things can happen. A meteor can fall on the car. An elephant could crush it, or a large truck could crash into the car. A baby can even end up chocking themselves on the straps from a child seat, which happened recently when a mother left their one year old in the car alone when they went into a supermarket to do some shopping. But, the fact remains that children in seat belfs, child seats and junior seats are stastically safer than free roaming in an automobile. Never mind the statistics, it makes common sense.

http://www.aeaweb.org/annual_mtg_papers/2008/2008_119.pdf

Seatbelts help to protect against forward motion. They do very little against side-to-side motion. If the car was hit from the side then the children could have been safely buckled in and still sustained sufficient trauma to put them into comas. Cars are massive 1+ ton objects traveling faster than a running horse, and when you're hit by that sort of force you'd have to be crazy to think that something as small as a seat belt can guarantee your safety.

Not sure why this is getting downvoted so much. It is completely logical and sound, especially taking the case that in very small Japanese domestic cars, there is so little protection from side impacts. The front of a vehicle will practically eat the side of a kei car.

oneduce,

I do not know much about down voting. I got down voted for linking a study. Personally, I disagreed with the part of the post you quoted where it states that 'seat belts do little against side to side motion. There are many studies that indicate seat belts do offer occupants protection from injuries resulting from side impact crashes. No one is disagreeing that people also sometimes get injured while wearing seat belts. No one is suggesting any guarantees with seat belts, just that they are safer.

By the way, LFRAgain,

Do any of your links suggest that seat belts are more dangerous for children than no restraints at all? If not, I will skip them as that is what we are discussing, not whether size appropriate child restraints, child seats and junior seats, are safer than adult-sized seat belts. I have not seen anyone suggesting that. So, please come back and let me know what your links are about because I have not seen any studies suggesting restraining children in seat belts is more dangerous than not restraining them at all.

Do any of your links suggest that seat belts are more dangerous for children than no restraints at all? If not, I will skip them as that is what we are discussing, not whether size appropriate child restraints, child seats and junior seats, are safer than adult-sized seat belts.

No, that's a direction you unilaterally decided to take this discussion, based on what, exacly, I'm still not sure. Frungy has maintained, quite clearly, I think, that adult seat belts are not a suitable substitution in the absence of approved child safety seats. And the research indicates he is correct. The links I provided speak to this point.

I have not seen any studies suggesting restraining children in seat belts is more dangerous than not restraining them at all.

That's because none likely exist. And that's because no one in their right mind would suggest such a thing. Just as Frungy would not suggest such a thing. And didn't. You just decided he did. What he did say multiple times, however, was that putting children in adult safety belts [in order to appear conscientious of the law and child safety, IMO], is foolish and dangerous to children. Crushed windpipes, strangulation, broken collar bones, necks, injured spines -- these are all the documented outcomes of children involved in accidents in which they were using a regular adult seatbelt in lieu of proper restraints. Along with being thrown out of the car in the event of a crash.

That's what the discussion has been about.

What I can't fathom is why and how, like most simple discussions at JT, this turned into something to be confrontational, snarky, and dismissive about. You both agree that proper restraints should be used. And there is an abundance of data available supporting Frungy's (and my) assertion that adult seatbelts provide little safety for small children. We all advocate proper restraints for appropriate passenger ages and sizes. Simple as that.

That you refuse to even look the links I provided suggests you are less interested in learning more about the subject and more interested in just "winning" this discussion. And I'm not sure what to say to that.

No, that's a direction you unilaterally decided to take this discussion, based on what, exacly, I'm still not sure. Frungy has maintained, quite clearly, I think, that adult seat belts are not a suitable substitution in the absence of approved child safety seats.

No. Please review what has been written before. I was the first person to mention child seats and junior seats in this discussion. Frungy brought the idea that seat belts were more dangerous than using no restraints. I challenged this and we have been discussing it. Frungy stated there were studies that indicated that using seat belts was more dangerous to children than using no restraints. No one in this discussion has claimed that seat belts were safer than child seats. You were the one unilaterally deciding to take the discussion in that direction. To what aim, I am not sure since no one has stated any disagreement that child seats and junior seats are safer for children, least of all me since I was the first to bring them up.

That you refuse to even look the links

Why should I look at them when I agree with the concept of using child seats as evidenced by my mentioning them first in this discussion? Frungy and I have clearly been discussing the safety of seat belts compared to no restraints at all. This is evidenced several times in this discussion.

Frungy first mentioned it here:

That leaves them either free-roaming or in seatbelts. Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned.

Clearly he is claiming that free-roaming is safer than seat belts. I believed he was mistaken and that is what we have been discussing. The link I posted clearly shows that of the two options, seat belts are safer than no restraints. No one has been claiming that seat belts are safer for children than child seats.

What I can't fathom is why and how, like most simple discussions at JT, this turned into something to be confrontational, snarky, and dismissive about.

Possibly because posters like yourself make the mistake of not reading what people write and to what they are responsding? That is the only explanation I can find for your post.

I generally like your posts, but you are way off the mark on this one and should have considered sitting this one out.

That wasn't my intention, but what I wrote could legitimately be interpreted that way by someone looking to score a point on some imaginary scoreboard. If that is Slumdog's sticking point then I'll retract that comment unreservedly, it was badly phrased.

Seriously? One post? We have clearly been discussing the subject over and over again. You were clearly several times in your claim that seat belts were more dangerous than no restraints at all. Not once, but several times.

I wrote:

No, seat belts are not statistcally more dangerous than kids free roaming around an automobile. I cannot believe you are actually attempting to suggest that no restraint is safer than using seat belts. It is not. Anyway, above a couple of times, I clearly suggest that small children should be placed in child seats.

Frungy wrote:

Please cite actual studies and statistics.

Frungy also wrote:

Levitt concludes that improper seat belt and child seat use are more dangerous than no seat belts once all the factors are taken into account.

I then posted a link to a Levitt study that clearly shows that seat belts are safer than no restraints at all.

Frungy has yet to post his study. However, the topic of discussion whether adult seat belts were safer than nothing at all was not a one shot post by Frungy. He responded several times to it and was specific. It also is clear that he was mistaken, not just in one post but in the following ones as well.

Unlike some, I can admit when I phrased something badly.

What you need to do is admit you were wrong when you suggested there was studies that said that no restraints were safer than seat belts for children.

tmarie

I don't know why the link did not work. Here is another:

http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_levitt_ei_aug2008.pdf

Failing that, you can google "In spite of these important drawbacks of seat belts for children, previous research has documented that children restrained by seat belts fare much better in crashes than unrestrained children." and it should come up in some form.

I'm just hoping these poor kids somehow pull through. So often it seems these awful accidents involve those flimsy little kei-cars. Maybe restrictions on them will soon be considered?

slumdogMay. 11, 2014 - 11:01PM JST Okay, you read what I wrote. Did you understand it? People of all ages need to be restrained in vehicles. It is illegal not to do so. For small children, a child seat is the safest option. For larger children, a junior seat is. So, in no way, shape or form does my argument 'go out the window'. If the woman had had a child seat for the 6 year old from the beginning, she would still be using some form of child restraint now, possibly the same seat depending on the size of the child.

She might, she might not if the child grew out of it and she believed that the law indicated best practice, i.e. that after 6 years old children required no special seating arrangements and could use a regular seat belt. I've seen relatively few "junior seats" in Japan.

Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned.

No, seat belts are not statistcally more dangerous than kids free roaming around an automobile. I cannot believe you are actually attempting to suggest that no restraint is safer than using seat belts. It is not. Anyway, above a couple of times, I clearly suggest that small children should be placed in child seats.

Please cite actual studies and statistics. And please don't cite traffic departments, their statistics are mostly pulled out of where the sun doesn't shine, for example "Speed kills", despite dozens of academic studies showing that while there is a correlation between speed and accidents the relationship is not causal.

I agree. But, I would go as high as 12 years old. I also have a huge problem with the fact that their are no fines or jail time for drivers that do not use child seats for children in their cars. They merely get their licenses suspended, which is not nearly strict enough.

Fair enough.

Yes, lots of things can happen. A meteor can fall on the car. An elephant could crush it, or a large truck could crash into the car. A baby can even end up chocking themselves on the straps from a child seat, which happened recently when a mother left their one year old in the car alone when they went into a supermarket to do some shopping. But, the fact remains that children in seat belfs, child seats and junior seats are stastically safer than free roaming in an automobile. Never mind the statistics, it makes common sense.

Except that side-impact crashes account for about 25% of traffic accidents, which is far more likely than elephants or meteors. Therefore taking precautions against a side-impact crash is just as sensible as taking precautions against being rear-ended or a head-on collision. Now that's common sense, not talking about elephants and meteors in the same breath as side-impact crashes as if the likelihood was the same.

You keep stating that "statistics". I'd really like to see these statistics, backed up by some hard science, because my experience of traumatic car crash injuries with kids shows no relationship between adult sized seatbelts on kids aged 6 to 10 and increased safety. Now I've only seen a couple of hundred cases, but that falls well above the "anecdote" category into the "evidence" category. In the case there are far more injuries from seatbelts on kids in that age range, and about an equal number of fatalities. In short, it is my opinion that regular seatbelts on kids don't significantly reduce fatalities.

They should be in specially designed car seats. I've seen almost no injuries or fatalities from kids in car seats, because the seatbelt tends to absorb almost all the impact, then snap and the car seat tumbles free as a solid unit, cushioning the child from subsequent impacts (it is a common belief that car crashes are a single impact, but actually they're normally a series of several impacts).

tmarieMay. 12, 2014 - 08:50AM JST Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned. I'd like a link to a s study that states this please.

It is called "seat belt syndrome". For improper seat belt use (using seat belts on kids who are too young) see Levitt, 2008. Levitt concludes that improper seat belt and child seat use are more dangerous than no seat belts once all the factors are taken into account.

Frungy's absolutely correct. Adult seat belts are dangerous for children. A proper child seat should be used until a child is at minumum 10 years old. Booster seats only count if they fit properly. According to the Center for Disease Control, that means: "Seat belts fit properly when the lap belt lays across the upper thighs (not the stomach) and the shoulder belt lays across the chest (not the neck). Remember to keep children properly buckled in the back seat for the best possible protection."

Links, since some here are demanding them (but seem to lack the skills to find them on their own):

Link: The Danger of Premature Graduation to Seat Belts for Young Children

Link: From the American Acedemy of Pediatrics - Policy Statement—Child Passenger Safety

Link: Adult Seat Belts Don't Keep Children Safe

There are plenty more, but I'm not here to provide free research assistance. These links are only a few keystrokes and a small investment of time away.

Levitt concludes that improper seat belt and child seat use are more dangerous than no seat belts once all the factors are taken into account.

I tried, but could not find the 2008 study you are referring to. It would be great if you could link it for us. I did find what might be another 2008 study by Levitt and Doyle which states:

Shoulder belts may fall improperly across the child’s neck, and the lap belt may lie on the child’s abdomen rather than across the hips, leading to possible abdominal injury and what is known as “seat belt syndrome”. In spite of these important drawbacks of seat belts for children, previous research has documented that children restrained by seat belts fare much better in crashes than unrestrained children.

To be honest, in the past year among the hundreds of thousands of cars with children I have seen on the roads, the ones with children restrained in any form could be counted on less than the fingers of two hands.

I do hope these kids recover quickly.

DisillusionedMay. 10, 2014 - 05:24PM JST Of course they were not wearing seat belts! If they were we would not be reading such a horrific article. Both kids were probably flung into the windscreen from the back seat. Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity is cultural!

Seatbelts help to protect against forward motion. They do very little against side-to-side motion. If the car was hit from the side then the children could have been safely buckled in and still sustained sufficient trauma to put them into comas.

Cars are massive 1+ ton objects traveling faster than a running horse, and when you're hit by that sort of force you'd have to be crazy to think that something as small as a seat belt can guarantee your safety.

Buckle up, but far more importantly, drive safely and for heaven's sake don't drive when you're impaired, like sleepy, sick, drunk, etc.

slumdogMay. 11, 2014 - 12:20AM JST

They do very little against side-to-side motion.

Actually, there have been a number of studies suggesting that seat belts do afford protection to occupants in side impact collisions, as well. In addition, even more studies suggest that child seats or so-called junior seats provide even more protection to their occupants in side impact collisions. There is not question in my mind that both the 10 year old and the 4 year old should have been seated in such child seats and junior seats. In Japan, children under 6 are required by law to be seated in child seats.

10 year old and 6 year old. There was no 4 year old.

Also, as a poster mentioned above, seat belts prevent occupants from being ejected from the vehicle. They also prevent the occupants from being sent flying around inside the vehicle. Both of these phenomenon also are major causes of injuries in automobile accidents.

No they don't. They prevent ADULT occupants from being ejected from the vehicle. Children can and do often slip right out of seatbelts, or the seatbelt is sitting across the neck and breaks the neck or fractures the windpipe and they die.

Your confidence in seatbelts for children is entirely misplaced.

LFRAgain - I looked back through my posts and I think I may actually be guilty as charged. I was clearly tired when I wrote one of my posts and wrote:

FrungyMay. 11, 2014 - 10:24PM JST That leaves them either free-roaming or in seatbelts. Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned. The legal age for car seats should be raised to 10, but even with car seats a side-impact like that can easily kill.

It was badly phrased. What I meant to write was that both free-roaming and seatbelts are dangerous, and that kids should be in car seats until at least 10 years old, but if some pedant wants to ignore the context of what I wrote then I am forced to admit that what I wrote could be read as encouraging free-roaming. That wasn't my intention, but what I wrote could legitimately be interpreted that way by someone looking to score a point on some imaginary scoreboard. If that is Slumdog's sticking point then I'll retract that comment unreservedly, it was badly phrased.

Unlike some, I can admit when I phrased something badly. My point was that car seats should be used until at least the age of 10, and the law needs to be amended, but even with car seats the real problem is unsafe driving and the number of impaired drivers on the roads in Japan.

It is called "seat belt syndrome". For improper seat belt use (using seat belts on kids who are too young) see Levitt, 2008. Levitt concludes that improper seat belt and child seat use are more dangerous than no seat belts once all the factors are taken into account.

You're basing your opinion on ONE study? One study that no one seems to be able to find - myself included. Link please.

"seat belt syndrome" seems to be linked to LAP belts. Two kids in the backseat mean one on the right, one of the left with a shoulder belt as well.

Frungy's absolutely correct. Adult seat belts are dangerous for children. A proper child seat should be used until a child is at minumum 10 years old. So why weren't the kids in proper child seats? Oh right, parental responsiblity rears its ugly head yet again.

Slum, that link doesn't load for me.

but even with car seats the real problem is unsafe driving and the number of impaired drivers on the roads in Japan I'd agree with that but I would also add "irresponsible parents who don't buckle up their children - like the law demands they do.

Unlike some, I can admit when I phrased something badly. But you can't admit when you're wrong, even after it was pointed out. Suggesting you stated something badly isn't the same thing as actually admitting what you wrote was incorrect and not what you meant. Nothing wrong with saying "You know, that isn't what I meant and you're right, I was wrong".

Cheers Slum - and agree with everything in your above post!

Since Frungy's issued a mea culpa, there's really no point in this anymore. But let me state for the record that it's pretty presumptuous (and not a little bit snarky) of you to assume I haven't been reading the thread. I've been reading it since the beginning, and while I don't proclaim myself to be any mystic master of English language arts, I do pride myself on being able to read not only for content and context, but also to recognize broader themes and subtext.

I don't believe I'm mistaken in what Frungy was trying to convey. And the fact that ever since your first accusation, he's been trying to no avail to redirect this conversation back towards his actual point, that adult seat belts are unsuitable for children, suggests rather clearly that Frungy wasn't at all suggesting what you think he was. All that's clear now is that you were intent on making that unlikely version of his position the sticking point, no matter what. You just clung to that like a dog with an old bone. It still makes no sense.

In any case, I generally enjoy both of your contributions here as well, which is why I was so baffled as to how this spiralled into what it did. You two usually leave little room for misunderstanding when you post.

I will now bow out. Here's to those two kids recovering from this relatively unscathed.

slumdogMay. 11, 2014 - 11:24AM JST Please read what I wrote. Seat belts, when used correctly with child seats or junior seats do prevent children from being thrown out of automobiles. They also prevent injuries to children inside the vehicles as well. This has been proven by study after study.

I read what you wrote. You admit that children over 6 (i.e. both children in this case) don't legally need to be in child seats, so your entire "child seat" argument goes out the window.

That leaves them either free-roaming or in seatbelts. Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned. The legal age for car seats should be raised to 10, but even with car seats a side-impact like that can easily kill.

The real problem here is that there are far too many "impaired" drivers on Japanese roads. A day doesn't go by that I don't see some driver who's weaving around the road because he's sick or has slept for only four hours and is too stubborn to stay at home.

The Japanese police need to start stopping drivers and doing random fatigue tests. Maybe after a few thousand people get big fines the word will get around that you need to be healthy and have had a solid 7 or 8 hours of sleep before getting behind the wheel of a one-ton killing machine.

Seatbelts are actually MORE dangerous for little kids because of the reasons I mentioned.

I'd like a link to a s study that states this please.

Regardless, if the kids were not wearing seatbelts, their parents broke the law. That's a very high price to pay for ignoring such a basic law - that is widely ignored from what I have seen here. No child deserves to be killed, more so when it may have been preventable by a quick click of a seatbelt.