car seat while on the islands

[ChickyfromVA]

We're doing a 7 day cruise from Miami; stops, St. Marrten, St. thomas and Bahamas. What do you do about the car seat stituation when you're on these islands? We're bring the car seat since Florida has a law but I can't imagine lugging it around while we're on the islands.

 

DS is 22 months old and he's 32lbs.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Sit him on your lap and tell the taxi driver 20mph maximum.

[cb at sea]

Many ports have trolley/buses....without seatbelts, so a carseat would be useless....you could use that form of transportation.

[Showtune]

The most popular mode of transport in St. Thomas and St. Maarten are shared taxi vans. You are very very unlikely to be able to use a car seat in these. Even in a private taxi you can't always count on seat belts (more likely in St. Thomas, since it's a US territory). In the Bahamas, you are unlikely to get seat belts either. If you book excursions, you will frequently be on buses, with no seat belts.

 

If this is a deal breaker for you, look into boat excursions or explore the ports on foot. You could also see about renting cars, but be sure to ask about seatbelts.

 

If you are looking for an easier car seat to travel with there are some inexpensive lighter weight seats (cosco scenera) and expensive foldable ones (sunshine/ diono radian).

[bsawg]

We are fanatical about car seat use, so would NEVER go without one, period. Our son is 4 and able to use the Ride Safer Travel Vest, which is easy to transport but expensive and not always a great solution since it needs a lap belt AND shoulder belt or lap belt and tether anchor. I learned a trick recently to use the lap belt in the row behind as a place to hook the tether, so we are going to try that for our upcoming tours in Dominica and Grenada if we find they don't have the anchor. The only other alternative was to bring our seat (Britax), which CAN be installed with only a lap belt. But we flew with that behemoth once and won't do it again if we can avoid it!

 

I also considered buying a new, inexpensive car seat, since there are some that fold up, mean for travel, etc. There's also the GoGo Travelmate thing that hooks to your car seat and makes it like a stroller for the airport.

 

The Ride Safer vest's smallest size is for 30 lbs and 32 inches. Is he tall?

 

Otherwise, I'd bring a seat that can do lap belt only, since that seems to be what most tour vans have. It's a pain but it's only a few years of annoying shlepping for peace of mind!

[6rugrats]

Sit him on your lap and tell the taxi driver 20mph maximum.

 

What a great idea!!!

 

No one ever gets into an accident at a low speed, and if you are going that slowly, you certainly would be able to hold onto yourself and your child and not crush them as you are thrown forward when the taxi is smashed from behind by a speeding vehicle.

[dsrdsrdsr]

You wouldn't be thrown forward if you were hit from behind by a speeding vehicle. You'd go backwards into the seat, and the child would be protected by your body.

 

But it's true, a child travelling in a car without a seat belt in the Caribbean is at more risk than a child travelling in a car without a seatbelt in the Caribbean. On the other hand, a child travelling in a car without a seatbelt in the Caribbean is at less risk than a child travelling in a car with a seatbelt in many American cities. It's a matter of risk and reward.

[bsawg]

Here is a report on children and road traffic injury from the World Health Organization. It is one of the most common ways that children around the world die, and "Low-income and middle-income countries account for 93% of child road traffic deaths." The Caribbean counts in there.

http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/child/injury/world_report/Main_messages_english.pdf

 

More here: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/whd_presentation.pdf

[dsrdsrdsr]

Don't believe all you read. According to that sheet, there are 1.2 million deaths in road accidents each year, and that represents 2.1% of total world deaths. This means there are 57.1 million deaths each year, and as we now have a world population of over 6 billion, the average life expectancy of the world's population as a whole is just over 100 years. Hmm.

 

Anyway, if we take their figures as correct, there are 200,000 child deaths in road accidents per year. That's out of a total world population of about 2 billion children, probably an underestimate, based on their definition of a child being less than 20 years old. So 1 in 10,000 children die in road accidents each year.

 

Given that the OP is only on shore for 4 days, that means the chance of the child dying is now only 4/365ths of that, ie. 1 in 912,500. But they're only on shore during the day, and nighttime is surely more dangerous - let's halve the odds, say 1 in 1.8m. And as the report points out, two of the ways of improving the chances are by slowing down and by wearing child restraints. I suggested slowing down and no restraint, you suggested full speed ahead and full restraint. Unless you have stats to prove otherwise, I call it a wash.

 

But to the OP, yes, if you want to reduce the odds of death to less than 1 in 2 million, you'll need to bring the child restraint. (But don't ask what the odds are of the child running round loose on the road while mother's trying to fit the child seat. Those stats are never advertised.)

[Mom2B&Z]

What a great idea!!!

 

No one ever gets into an accident at a low speed, and if you are going that slowly, you certainly would be able to hold onto yourself and your child and not crush them as you are thrown forward when the taxi is smashed from behind by a speeding vehicle.

 

Actually no it's not. It is physiologically impossible for an adult to hold a child, even an infant, safely in their arms in a collision. The forces greatly exceed what the arm and shoulder muscles are able to exert.

As for the poster who claims being involved in an injurious motor vehicle accident while in port is essentially impossible, I for one lug car seats and boosters around, and did so in the ports mentioned by the OP. We used a water taxi in Nassau, walked around downtown Phillipsburg and used our car seat and booster (with a vehicle equipped with 3 point seatbelts and top tethers for the car seat) in St. Thomas. I don't want to deal with a foreign health care system if we're in a collision, so I use vehicle restraints appropriate for my children. Why would I jeopardize their safety just because we are on vacation? The laws of physics don't change, so why would my safety standards? For the record we also use our car seats on aircraft, again because the research shows that in certain (albeit rare) situations they protect a child from serious injury.

FWIW, ask anyone working with people with brain injuries or at a children's hospital what they do when they travel. I work in health care, in neurology, and none of us give up safety when we travel, we know the consequences are severe and permanent. I am also certified in Canada as a car seat technician.

[bsawg]

Don't believe all you read. According to that sheet, there are 1.2 million deaths in road accidents each year, and that represents 2.1% of total world deaths. This means there are 57.1 million deaths each year, and as we now have a world population of over 6 billion, the average life expectancy of the world's population as a whole is just over 100 years. Hmm.

 

Unless you have stats to prove otherwise, I call it a wash.

 

I don't understand how you get the age/life expectancy bit out of those statistics.

 

If the World Health Organization isn't enough of an authority, I don't really have much to offer that will convince you, I am sure. The stats that prove to ME that it is worthwhile to properly restrain my child in a vehicle are these - unrestrained children in a crash, however statistically improbable that crash may be, are more likely to suffer serious injury and death. Far more likely. All it takes is one unlikely accident.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983245

 

"Children not in child restraint devices were 11 times more likely to die in an accident than children in child restraint devices. Children traveling in the arms of an adult were exposed to a risk of injury or death comparable to that of children left entirely unrestrained."

From here: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/252/18/2571.abstract

[6rugrats]

Actually no it's not. It is physiologically impossible for an adult to hold a child' date=' even an infant, safely in their arms in a collision. The forces greatly exceed what the arm and shoulder muscles are able to exert.[/quote']

I was being facetious. Of course it's not safe to hold a child in your arms and tell the driver to only travel at 20 MPH. It was one of the silliest things I've ever seen on this board, and that's saying a lot.

[YOWmom]

We've lugged the carseat on 3 cruises (for my almost 3YO) and have never had trouble finding a cab where we can use it. Last month in St. Thomas, we took a taxi to Magen's bay and it was a Toyota Sienna minivan so no trouble to install at all, and we just arranged for the same driver to come back and pick us up and she let us leave it in the back of her van, so no lugging involved. In St. Maarten, we always rent a car and so we only have to carry the carseat and booster (for the very petite 7YO) to the end of the pier where the car rental booth is located (or sometimes the rental companies will provide a carseat for a small fee). In Nassau, we usually either stay on the ship or walk as far as Starbucks and back, so have never needed it there :)

[dsrdsrdsr]

I don't understand how you get the age/life expectancy bit out of those statistics.

If less than 1 in 100 people die each year, then the average life expectancy must be over 100 years. Divide the total population by the number dying each year.

[dsrdsrdsr]

I work in health care' date=' in neurology, and none of us give up safety when we travel, we know the consequences are severe and permanent. I am also certified in Canada as a car seat technician.[/quote']

You certainly do give up safety when you travel. No doubt someone can find some more statistics, but I'm sure that more people die on a drive-fly-cruise holiday than would have done if they'd stayed at home. What you're saying is that you'll take a degree of extra risk, because you'll let the child go on holiday, but you won't allow that extra risk to increase any more by leaving the child seat behind.

[6rugrats]

You certainly do give up safety when you travel. No doubt someone can find some more statistics, but I'm sure that more people die on a drive-fly-cruise holiday than would have done if they'd stayed at home. What you're saying is that you'll take a degree of extra risk, because you'll let the child go on holiday, but you won't allow that extra risk to increase any more by leaving the child seat behind.

Well without these statistics, your comments are really meaningless. Anecdotal does not equalempirical.

 

Anyone can say anything, but that doesn't make it true. The other poster is NOT saying they are taking extra risk by going on holiday. That's your opinion.

 

For anyone who thinks car seats are just too much trouble to lug around, how would you feel if you couldn't be bothered and something happened? You'd never forgive yourself. Being a parent is a huge PITA sometimes. It comes with the territory. Bring the seat or take transportation that doesn't require one.

[6rugrats]

According to that sheet, there are 1.2 million deaths in road accidents each year, and that represents 2.1% of total world deaths. This means there are 57.1 million deaths each year, and as we now have a world population of over 6 billion, the average life expectancy of the world's population as a whole is just over 100 years.

 

I don't understand how you get the age/life expectancy bit out of those statistics.

 

No one who understands statistics understands this either; you are not alone!

[Mom2B&Z]

You certainly do give up safety when you travel. No doubt someone can find some more statistics, but I'm sure that more people die on a drive-fly-cruise holiday than would have done if they'd stayed at home. What you're saying is that you'll take a degree of extra risk, because you'll let the child go on holiday, but you won't allow that extra risk to increase any more by leaving the child seat behind.

Really? I think you need to double check your statistical sources. Flying is safer than driving, and cruising has similar statistics even with the recent Costa incident. It is statistically more dangerous to drive to work than fly to a vacation destination. I will concede that school buses are safer than other forms of vehicular transportation (my source is Transport Canada).

So it is actually safer for my children to travel on aircraft for vacations than cars for regular daily commutes.

I'm done replying to your posts as all you're interested in doing is trying to prove a point you have failed miserably to make. Car seats and boosters save lives.

[dsrdsrdsr]

So it is actually safer for my children to travel on aircraft for vacations than cars for regular daily commutes.

I'm done replying to your posts as all you're interested in doing is trying to prove a point you have failed miserably to make. Car seats and boosters save lives.

But safer still if they stay at home. I didn't mean drive to school, fly somewhere else, whatever - I meant stay at home with the doors closed and the curtains drawn.

 

I KNOW car seats and boosters save lives. I've said that all along. All I'm saying is that they don't save enough lives to make them worth lugging across the globe, because the risk is so very very small. It would be easier to carry a crash helmet for when you're not in a car than to carry a car seat for when you are - but why not do both? Head injuries for child pedestrians, whether hit by a car or in a simple fall, are serious causes of injury. And they're in a car such a short time on holiday, they're running around on shore and on the ship so much more.

 

People die from choking on small things. Do you ban small things form your house? People die cutting themselves on knives and scissors. Do you ban knives and scissors? You could improve your child's life expectancy by not eating meat, thus not letting botulism or e-coli into the house. Do you? No. Because the risk is too small to bother. Risk and reward.

 

But of course it's entirely your choice to take whatever degree of precaution you see fit. It just (unreasonably, perhaps)irritates me when it's all based on articles of faith with no logic to it.

[bsawg]

If less than 1 in 100 people die each year, then the average life expectancy must be over 100 years. Divide the total population by the number dying each year.

 

Unreasonably, perhaps, this is driving me crazy. The total number of people dying each year worldwide is not related to average life expectancy.

 

CIA World Factbook says it's about 8/1000 people dying per year, similar to the first less than 1/100 you mentioned. This does not mean we know the age of those people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2066.html

 

See? Like, the US has a life expectancy of 78 years. We have about 7-8/1000 people dying per year. The Solomon Islands only has 3/1000 dying each year but they have a similar life expectancy (74). There are way more variables involved in life expectancy than that one statistic.

 

I still cut my kid's food into small enough bites to avoid blocking his windpipe. We are vegetarians (though not for fear of e-coli). I wouldn't hand him a knife. And I wouldn't put him in a car unrestrained. I consider that to be an unacceptable risk because I cannot imagine living with myself if something happened when I took a chance, and I do not consider car accidents to be so incredibly rare. Maybe when you've had a few tragic things happen in your life that are statistically improbable (as I have), you become more convinced that these things CAN happen to you, no matter how rare they are overall. Or not. Who knows?

 

Anyway, I hope SOMETHING said here, maybe back at the beginning when I was actually trying to mention a few products that might help instead of obsessing over statistics, is useful to the original poster. And I admit to hoping to convince a few people to lug the car seat on their next vacation. I suppose we all have our agendas.

[dsrdsrdsr]

Unreasonably, perhaps, this is driving me crazy. The total number of people dying each year worldwide is not related to average life expectancy.

 

CIA World Factbook says it's about 8/1000 people dying per year, similar to the first less than 1/100 you mentioned. This does not mean we know the age of those people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2066.html

 

See? Like, the US has a life expectancy of 78 years. We have about 7-8/1000 people dying per year. The Solomon Islands only has 3/1000 dying each year but they have a similar life expectancy (74). There are way more variables involved in life expectancy than that one statistic.

If the average number of deaths in the Solomon Islands is only 3 per 1,000, then it can only mean the population is very young and very healthy. The number has to increase dramatically in the near future. If it continues at that rate, then only 300 people will die in the next 100 years, meaning that 700 out of every 1,000 people living there now will still be alive in 100 years time - as well as every single child born in the meantime.

[bsawg]

If the average number of deaths in the Solomon Islands is only 3 per 1,000, then it can only mean the population is very young and very healthy. The number has to increase dramatically in the near future. If it continues at that rate, then only 300 people will die in the next 100 years, meaning that 700 out of every 1,000 people living there now will still be alive in 100 years time - as well as every single child born in the meantime.

 

It's not 300 in 100 years because it's per thousand and it's each year. So the population there is 571000. Each year about 1700 die. In 100 years it would be 170,000. But I don't think you can extrapolate it to mean that because of all the change in 100 years (you're right about them being a youngish population and that number will go up). The number only means as of now, 3/1000 people die per year. It isn't saying anything about 100 years from now. For the US, we have a population of 307,000,000 and each year about 2,150,000 die.

[6rugrats]

It's not 300 in 100 years because it's per thousand and it's each year. So the population there is 571000. Each year about 1700 die. In 100 years it would be 170,000. But I don't think you can extrapolate it to mean that because of all the change in 100 years (you're right about them being a youngish population and that number will go up). The number only means as of now, 3/1000 people die per year. It isn't saying anything about 100 years from now. For the US, we have a population of 307,000,000 and each year about 2,150,000 die.

Give it up. You can't fix stupid.

[bus man]

Ah, a car-seat thread. You just gotta love 'em! :D

 

We're facing the exact same question as the OP, the only difference being that the kids in question are 5-1/2 and 3-1/2. What to do? We've already ruled out those safari buses on St. Thomas. Even before the recent accident, they just struck me as too unsafe for my comfort. So we've decided to restrict ourselves to what can be done at the port area.

 

On St. Maarten, we'll be hiring a private van to take us around. The tour operator (Bernard's Tours) said that the vehicle will have seat belts. But what about shoulder harnesses? Without them, there would be no point in bringing the booster seats.

 

What to do? On the one hand, we always use the boosters and belts at home, and I believe that they are very beneficial. I myself have been wearing seat belts since I started driving -- every time, without fail, long before it was the law. And if I didn't bring the boosters, and the kids were hurt (or worse) in an accident, could I ever forgive myself?

 

But then again, the risk of anything bad happening on any one specific car ride is miniscule. Yes, people die in car accidents. But millions of people (myself included) survived their childhoods without ever once wearing a seat belt. At what point do we just take a chance? Would just using a lap belt, without a shoulder harness and without a booster, be sufficient for kids the ages of mine?

 

I don't have the answers, and I haven't decided what we're going to do -- bring the booster seats, or just use the van's seat belts without the boosters. If anyone can give me specifics as to what to expect, seat belt-wise, from Bernard's, I'd be grateful.

[bsawg]

I looked into this at great length for tours in Grenada and Dominica. They only have lap belts in the van. I toyed with waiting until we get there, and inspecting the vehicles myself, but I really want a good guide and like to plan ahead. We use the Ride Safer travel vest, like I said. It would work for your two but it is pricey. It needs a lap belt AND shoulder belt or a lap belt AND tether. I think it is possible that the vans will have the tether anchor (I found it really hard to communicate what I need through email with the tour operators so not sure I know) but if they do not, I have learned something called the "temporary top tether" from car seat techs. It is far from perfect and I am still a tiny bit nervous about it, but it is far better than no car seat and far easier than shelpping (while still offering a high degree of safety). Google it - you basically clip the tether to the latched lap belt of the seat behind the child.

 

The boards at car-seat.org are a wealth of information.