kaiser@furilo.DEC (Pete Kaiser, 225-5441, HLO2-1/N10) (01/05/86)
I usually post monthly the child-related product recall notes published in
"Consumer Reports", a magazine which -- unsolicited plug -- is an invaluable
source of consumer information of all kinds, not just about products. (The
index, in the current issue, of topics for the year past of interest specifi-
cally to parents includes these items and more: infant-seat rules for air
travel; college costs; home computers including games, printers, monitors, and
software in general; "Penny Power"; the Dalkon Shield; garage-door openers [ever
been pregnant and had to lift a garage door?]; nutrition supplements; soaps; tax
guides; televisions; toothpastes; and wills.)
This month, however, the product recall notes contain no child-related informa-
tion, so instead I'm going to post a letter from the letters column which deals
with a subject much in the public attention in Massachusetts over the past few
weeks as 1 January 1986 approached. 1 January was the date that it became man-
datory to wear a seatbelt in this state. (No sensible person, of course, ex-
pects this to have any more effect on most of the driving public than does the
law requiring that children be properly restrained in a car.)
If you've been a reader of "net.kids" since last 1 April, you may recall my note
then about seatbelts; I wrote it after my car turned over after skidding on an
icy patch while I was driving to work that day. I was securely belted, and I
walked away from that one unharmed. In the aftermath of that note the flames
rose high and charred lots of other newsgroups; this time let's try to keep it
here, if flame we must. Personally, I hope we needn't. Comment welcome, of
course. Anyhow, here's the letter and the editorial addition from "Consumer
Reports":
Last July, I was in our Ford LTD with my seven-year-old son. He sat on
the right front corner of the front seat and accidentally pulled a
little on the handle to catch his balance as we made a left turn. The
door was securely locked. Even so, the door opened and yanked him out.
The right rear tire ran over his left leg and ripped off the back of his
knee. He is fortunate to be alive.
People have suggested I sue Ford for making a car door that opens so
easily. But suing won't erase the memory of the accident and the pain
my child went through, nor the guilt I've had to deal with for not
making him wear his seat belt. (We wear seat belts all the time, but on
that particular day we went only a mile from home and were only a block
from our house when the accident occurred.)
If there is any way to prevent other people from having such accidents,
we want to help. There ought to be a code or law that says car doors
will not open unless they are purposely unlocked.
MEMPHIS, TENN. D.C.
So far as we know, Ford and Volvo are the only carmakers that
design the front car door so that the inside handle overrides
the lock. On other makes, the front doors need to be delib-
erately unlocked before the inside handle will work.
Some cars, including our Toyota Tercel, have child locks on the rear doors which
prevent the doors from being opened from the inside even if they're unlocked.
The rear seat is safer than the front seat anyhow. Put the kids there, make
sure the child locks are set, and then belt them in. It takes only one mishap.
---Pete
Kaiser%BELKER.DEC@decwrl.arpa
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-belker!kaiser
DEC, 77 Reed Road (HLO2-1/N10), Hudson MA 01749 617-568-5441paver@milano.UUCP (Bob Paver) (01/06/86)
The front doors on my 1980 Volvo 245 do not override the door locks as stated in Consumer Reports. No excuse for not having everyone in a seatbelt or car seat! Seat belts are the law now in Texas. We've been hearing a lot of the "Live free or die" rhetoric!
wagner@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/07/86)
I don't know about older Volvos, but my 1984 Volvo wagon does not allow you to open a locked front door without unlocking it. The car also has child-safe locks (which cannot be unlocked from the inside) on the back doors.