|
If I were to argue this case in court, I would suggest that the rear third seat is merely a factory installed booster seat – similar to the integrated booster seat in the middle position of the back seat. After all, the purpose of a booster seat is to position the occupant in such a way that the seat belt restrains them properly. That’s exactly what the rear-facing 3rd seat does.
I’d also add that in the event of a head-on collision, facing backwards is the best possible position to be in – so the rear-facing 3rd seat is the safest seat in the vehicle. Obviously, a rear-end collision is a completely different story. Which brings up a topic that’s been discussed in other threads. It seems to be a logical conclusion that 3rd seat safety is adequate for “around town” driving (up to, say about 45 mph). But at highway speeds, one might be better served to NOT allow the kids to ride in it. One Brickboarder observed that the rear of his car was crumpled (read: crushed) during a rear-end collision at highway speeds. That “crumpling” is what the car is designed to do – it absorbs the energy and saves your life. But if kids are sitting in the “crumple zone” well, the result would likely be catastrophic.
Jeff Pierce
--
'93 945 Turbo ( one kickass family car ! ), '92 Mercedes 190E (my daily driver), '53 Willys-Overland Pickup (my snow-plow truck/conversation piece)
|
