Legal requirements to child seats.

CiniO

RSA says the following:
http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Child-Safety-in-Cars/The-Law/

All children under 150cms in height or 36kgs (79lbs) in weight must use a child restraint system (CRS) suitable for their height and weight while travelling in a car or goods vehicle (other than a taxi). An example of a CRS would be a child car seat or booster cushion.

Now - how should we understand it.

Does child need to be over 150cm and over 36kg to be able to travel without child seat.

Or is one of those conditions enough to be travelling without child seat?
I.e. if child is 155cm tall, but only 33kg weight.
Or opposite 145cm tall, but 37kg weight.
Can those kids travel without child seat or not?

Toyotafanboi

It says 150cms or 36kgs, "or" meaning one or the other. If they wanted both conditions to be met it would say "and" not "or".

CiniO

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

It says 150cms or 36kgs, "or" meaning one or the other. If they wanted both conditions to be met it would say "and" not "or".

I was just thinking that "or" results in true once first or second or both conditions are met, which would mean that if child is below 150cm that's enough to warrant a need for child seat even if they weight more than 36kg.
At least that's how I understand it, but my logic might be skewed due to some experience in computer programming, when possibly "or" and "and" means something else in real spoken language.

Dravokivich

The equipment is designed to tolerances. If the kid is over 36kg, regardless of height, the equipment may not be suitable. Just as if the kid is over 150cm, regardless of weight the equipment may not be suitable.

My son is a bit taller for his age profile, so I'd expect he'd be out of them earlier than usual. He's almost too tall for his car seat that should have done him for another year.

mikeecho

For those (like me) who mentally still work height and weight the old way..

4' 11" or 5 1/2 stone

CiniO

mikeecho wrote: »

For those (like me) who mentally still work height and weight the old way..

4' 11" or 5 stone

I think it's more like 5.5 stone.

mikeecho

CiniO wrote: »

I think it's more like 5.5 stone.

Everyone under estimates weight in this country

I'll edit my post.

toyotafan

CiniO wrote: »

RSA says the following:
http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Child-Safety-in-Cars/The-Law/

All children under 150cms in height or 36kgs (79lbs) in weight must use a child restraint system (CRS) suitable for their height and weight while travelling in a car or goods vehicle (other than a taxi). An example of a CRS would be a child car seat or booster cushion.

Now - how should we understand it.

Does child need to be over 150cm and over 36kg to be able to travel without child seat.

Or is one of those conditions enough to be travelling without child seat?
I.e. if child is 155cm tall, but only 33kg weight.
Or opposite 145cm tall, but 37kg weight.
Can those kids travel without child seat or not?

As I understand, a child does not need to use a CRS if both conditions 'over 150cm' and 'over 36kg' should satisfy. Any child has below one of these condition must use CRS. Think about a case of a child 140 cm tall with 38kg, the car safety belt would not fit well the child's body as a part of the belt is too height, so the should use a booster to raise up the child.

GM228

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

It says 150cms or 36kgs, "or" meaning one or the other. If they wanted both conditions to be met it would say "and" not "or".

Forget what the RSA says, the actual law states "and" rather than "or", both are required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/si/240/made/en/print

“child” means a person who is under 150 centimetres in height and weighs less than 36 kilograms

CiniO

GM228 wrote: »

Forget what the RSA says, the actual law states "and" rather than "or", both are required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/si/240/made/en/print

“child” means a person who is under 150 centimetres in height and weighs less than 36 kilograms

So...

Just to be 100% certain, that means that person who fulfills only one of those conditions (f.e. less than 150cm but more then 36kg or more then 150cm but less than 36kg) does not fulfill definition of being a child, therefore is not required to use child seat.

Am I right in that?

seamus

The RSA have taken the backwards interpretation and then erroneously applied it. That is, if your child is over 150cm or over 36kg, they do not need a CRS.

It's not uncommon for the RSA to make a mistake like this.

Toyotafanboi

GM228 wrote: »

Forget what the RSA says, the actual law states "and" rather than "or", both are required.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/si/240/made/en/print

That's very misleading then isn't it. It's poor English. Why would they say "or" if they mean "and". How are we to interpret the rules correctly if they can't even be written correctly.

seamus

CiniO wrote: »

But in that case, it means the same thing, doesn't it?

No. It's something drilled into you in computer science courses, so maybe I take it for granted. But "and" means you need to satisfy both conditions. "or" means you only need to satisfy either.

So when the law say that anyone under 150cm and under 36kg needs a CRS, then any child over 150cm does not need a CRS, regardless of their weight.

Whereas the RSA say 150cm or 36kg. This would mean that a 156cm child who weighs 30kg would need a car seat. Which is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

That's very misleading then isn't it. It's poor English. Why would they say "or" if they mean "and". How are we to interpret the rules correctly if they can't even be written correctly.

The law is gospel. The RSA are wrong.

Seth Brundle

Id agree with the view that they are giving out dangerous and incorrect legal advice.
I've dropped them a note via their website.

Toyotafanboi

seamus wrote: »

The law is gospel. The RSA are wrong.

I'm not saying otherwise, I probably sound naive but it's hard to imagine how an authoritative state body could get such a simple thing so wrong. "They had one job" kind of a thing.

CiniO

seamus wrote: »

No. It's something drilled into you in computer science courses, so maybe I take it for granted. But "and" means you need to satisfy both conditions. "or" means you only need to satisfy either.

So when the law say that anyone under 150cm and under 36kg needs a CRS, then any child over 150cm does not need a CRS, regardless of their weight.

Whereas the RSA say 150cm or 36kg. This would mean that a 156cm child who weighs 30kg would need a car seat. Which is incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

The law is gospel. The RSA are wrong.

True.
Sorry.
I interpreted it correctly in post 3, but then got mixed up.

So legislation says if child is above 150cm then there's no need for child seat, regardles of weight.
If child is above 36kg, then there's no need for child seat, regardles of height.

RSA says opposite thing, but they are wrong.

It's actually not first time they're wrong - list of their mistakes could be long by now.

seamus

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

I'm not saying otherwise, I probably sound naive but it's hard to imagine how an authoritative state body could get such a simple thing so wrong. "They had one job" kind of a thing.

To be fair to the RSA, Road Traffic legislation is huge and messy, with changes basically every year. And then you have add-on legislation like this one.

They're still a relatively small organisation, so it's to be expected that items like this might only be reviewed by 2 or 3 people before being published, and perhaps only one of those people has actually seen the legislation.

So I'll forgive them oversights like that. It's when they try to argue that their interpretation is correct, despite being at odds with the law, that I have trouble.

Seth Brundle

kbannon wrote: »

I've dropped them a note via their website.

Just got a response (I pointed them towards this thread!)...

RSA wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail to the Road Safety Authority and apologies for any delay in coming back to you.

I understand completely where you are coming from however it’s not always that straight forward in practice.

We have checked over 30,000 child car seats as part of our Check it Fits Service. We therefore know that it is very rare that you would come across a child who is exactly 150cms and 36kgs at the same time so we are consistently being faced with a predicament. We also sought advice from our Regulations Advisor here in the RSA when producing these publications and agreed this interpretation.

Some children are over the weight but under the height meaning they can no longer use a child car seat as they are only tested and approved for use up to a maximum of 36kgs but yet they are below the recommended height for using a seatbelt which is 150cms. In this case, because the correct placement of the seatbelt on the child’s body is so important, we would tend to prioritise their height. For a child under the height, without a booster, the seatbelt would be on their neck (and tummy in some cases) instead of their shoulder. In this case, we advise parents to make contact with the manufacturer of the Booster Seat / Cushion to establish whether it can be used beyond 36kgs, until the child reaches 150cms.

On the other hand, some children are over the height but under the weight. We don’t believe that this predicament creates the same level of severity but can still cause problems. In this case, although the child has exceeded the height and according to their height can use a seatbelt which is designed for a person in excess of 150cms, they are still under the weight. Some parents choose to continue to use the booster until the child reaches 36kgs however using a booster for a child who is 150cms already may cause the opposite effect on the seatbelt placement in that it can cause the shoulder belt to slip off the shoulder of the child, having a negative effect on its ability to restrain the child sufficiently.

All this being said, it is not within our remit to change current European Law however I’m not sure if you’re aware that there is a new regulation being introduced on a phased basis called Regulation 129 or more commonly referred to as iSize. R129 references stature and size and in some cases makes reference to age when establishing an appropriate child car seat for a child. This is in contrast to Regulation 44 which as you referenced, deals with height and weight. So far, Phase I is in place and is running concurrently with Regulation 44 and makes it mandatory for a baby to remain rear-facing up to 15 months while using one of these seats. Phase II is allowed for in regulations also and is being introduced, which deals with Booster Seats. In R129, no booster seat without a back will be approved and under R44, no more booster cushions (without a back) will be tested or approved. We believe that the introduction of this new legislation will eradicate issues such as those described above with height and weight parameters.

For the RSA, efforts in this country need to focus on getting greater compliance with the existing law, as our own practical checks show a substantial number of children are being installed incorrectly in child restraints at the moment. In addition to this, to date, neither child car seat manufacturers or vehicle manufacturers have been able to provide definitive solutions in this area, not only in Ireland but across the EU.

For your information, I have pasted the link to the Statutory Instrument in the Irish Statue Book. If you scroll to number 240 in this link, you will see all the amendments to the original:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/isbc/si2006_201-250.html

I do hope I have been of assistance to you in clarifying our position on this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further queries in relation to same.

I responsed with:

kbannon wrote:

thanks for your reply.
The RSA define a child as being "under 150cms in height or 36kgs (79lbs) in weight".
The law defines a child as "a person who is under 150 centimetres in height and weighs less than 36 kilograms"

There is a difference between the two.
The law does not require a child restraint seat for someone who is 151cm but 35Kg. The RSA statement does require a child restraint seat.
The RSA interpretation is incorrect by using the word "or".


Thanks