Help! Kids' Safety..Save my Pcar!

My wife emailed me last night with concerns for our kids (7 and 4) safety riding in the backseat of my C2 Cab. Here is what she said: I really am concerned about the boys riding in the back of your car. I am so afraid that they will get crushed if you are in an accident, even if it isn't your fault and even if their seatbelts hold them in. ??????? Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azgBhZfcqaQ Now, how should I repsond to this? Is there any crash test evidence or other information out there on the C2 that can help me fight this battle to save my Pcar? (Here is our seating arrangement: 4 yo in booster seat behind passenger, 7yo behind driver. Both of their seatbelts are properly positioned across their chests and laps. The kids LOVE riding with me, however it is usually just to their soccer and football games and for shorts trips to the store, etc.)

well the kid in the movie was killed in a mini van not a convertible. But really kids especialy the 4 yr old should be in a child seat. In a roll over accident your cab has 2 roll over bars that pop out of the panels behind the seats to protect the occupants in a roll over.

Is a child seat necessary when the booster seat positions the seatbelt correctly?

So....the choice is the safety of your kids or showing off your car? Doesn't mean you can't take the kid's out in the Cab, but there is no way you can claim that they are as safe as they would be in, say an SUV or bigger car. I think the biggest risk is being rear ended and run over by a larger car or truck. Life is full or risks and it's up to you to minimize them for your kid's.

It's not a choice, persay, I just think she is overreacting. True, they are safer in her Escalade or were in my 750, however I think the safety issues in my Pcar are minimal compared to her opinions. I am just looking for some facts (if there are any) to back this up. I don't believe these are "deathtraps" in any way!

No, they are not death traps and I often used to take my kid's riding in my Porsches. A kid riding on a back of your motorcycle is not necessarily at any greater risk either....unless an accident occurs. I guess those who have lost a child in an auto accident would probably be more conservative and protective (maybe overly protective) than those who have never had that experience.

True 1999...good comments...thanks!

While we here could offer you our opinions based on what we have read (hopefully) and experienced you should go to the NHTSA site and read what they have to say on the matter. The prevailing myth is that a bigger/larger car is always safer. While potentially true that a larger car has more physical space in the crumple zones, a well engineered cabin is not the area that is supposed to collapse. The rest of the car is supposed to sacrifice itself to protect the occupants. Now in the case of a really large car during a frontal or side impact the idea is that there is more space between you and the area taking the impact. But then again, in a large SUV it is not like you have your kids seated in the center of the back seat do you? They are seated alongside the doors just like in the back of a 911 (obviously less space around everyone in the 911). Of course we know that all of our car clubs reccommend the use of rollcages and rollbars to limit any intrusion into the cabin when the cars limits are put to the test on the track and the likely hood of a higher speed impact/rollover is more likely. But while clearly safer would you add a rollcage jus to drive on the street? Also, a coupe is definitely safer for occupants than a cab just because of the roof. Obviously I am no expert in the area and defer you to the experts. I for one have two car seats securely mounted in the back of my 911. A Recaro Young Sport for my 18 month old and a Britax Star Riser booster for my 3.5 year old. OT: We were so impressed with the Recaro Young Sport's Side Impact protection that we are seriously considering buying 3 more and using them for both kids in both cars. (they go up to 80 lbs).

Pj, a good read. Thanks! I just looked up the NHTSA website and, unfortunately, there is no crash data for our cars. Guess it would get kind of expensive to crash $100K+ cars huh? I don't think the issue is rollover with her, but a crash. I agree with your point about the cabin being engineered not to collapse (German engineering, to boot!). I will look into the Recaro seat, however it may be too large for my 7 yo (face would be right in the back of the front seat with no legroom). Thanks for the comments!

fyi, my wife wanted to put roll-bar in our mini-van, so your woman is not that "over-react" after all. everything has risk, that's why i put my daughters in the booster seats, and never take them on long trip in 911.

ill tell you i once say a 996 cab that hit a wall doing north of 120 impact was directed from the drivers front headlamp. The car desinigratedthe front bumper was about 7 inchs from the windsheild. BUT both occupants walked away, the driver had a foot injury from the clutch pedal pinning his ankle when the front tire pushed in the floor , BUt after seeing that car and how destroyed it was on the outside with really no signs of the collision on the inside. the doors held their shape. and the passanger comparment remained almost totaly unharmed. Wish i could post the pics but i cant do that. Sorry

Pl, is my wife your wife's sister? lol Yeah, I do the same, no long trips, but I guess an accidnet can happen pulling out of the driveway... 99, that's incredible! Good to know....would love to see some pics of that, or other crashed 911's...thanks!

However, some accidents can be quite different. Depends on what you collide with. http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1341086.php

Right, and stupid driving doesn't help...passing on the right over 100mph? Geez! Found a good picture too: http://www.carchaos.com/car_crash_pi...0_porsche_911/

^^ www.wreckedexotics.com

1999, it is not the future yet. "more than 100mph" into a solid concrete structure is pushing the limits of survivability. (how much more?, seatbelt or just airbag, etc). Funny on this topic, my wife brought this up last night about "could the Pcar crush our kids legs into the backs of the front seats since there is not that much room in an accident". I told her bluntly that if we are hitting something hard enough that "any" car is going to "collapse" the space between the front and rear seats then we are all likely done for. Back to BBHelms, the Recaro probably isn't good for bigger kids for the reason that you mention (leg room) the Britax Star Riser or its replacement the Parkway are excellent boosters that fit the 911.

I was just looking thru Wreckedexotics.com...thanks! PJ, that is true...I have said the same thing. Yeah, I have the Britax booster and works great on the 4yo...7yo is too big even for that.

my pcar wreck a few years ago. Wasn't going that fast really (about mid 50's around a bend no traction in the median due to recent sanding for snow). Avoiding head on deer, hit deer sideways, crossed median with zero traction, went through curb, clipped a light pole, punched through chain link fence and came to rest backed against a tree. Car totaled, me upset but completely fine, doors still made the right click sound when closing.

Dang, this one is amazing! Read the story with it. http://www.wreckedexotics.com/911/91...0208_003.shtml Pj, wow! I guess these cars are engineered for performance AND safety! Thanks.

BB, I got the same e-mail from my wife yesterday too - good grief, this youtube thing is going to be the death of us all. My wife drives a big-*** 2005 Expedition, and I drive the BMW wagon most days, but REGULARLY shuttle the kids in the C4S. My 10 year old rides up front with me (airbag disabled) and my huge 6 year old rides in back, snug as a bug. I have ZERO fear that they are in more danger than in the Expedition. I can stop faster, turn quicker and avoid far more trouble than can my wife, and we all know the 996 is built like a tank. Your kids are safe in their car seats, the P-car is engineered to keep everyone safe, and you wouldn't drive like a nut with your kids in the car, would you? Death to youtube! (She also sent me the "Free Hugs" guy - I guess I'm supposed to stop shaking hands at work and start hugging people???)

LMAO Nut...let's fight the good fight.. Looks like we're in the same boat.

Re: Child car passenger safety. Generally the longer you can keep them in the back seat in an appropriate restraint the lower the risk. As you graduate from rear facing seat to front facing seat to booster to non-booster you are generally increasing the risk. This also goes for graduating from rear seat into the front seat of the car. Here is a report, though lengthy, that will give you lots of good ideas and some comfort that what you are doing is appropriate. This report is really good in that it is not sponsored by "industry" or "govt" but rather many groups that are interested in CPS or child passenger safety, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, Inc. http://www.actsinc.org/Acrobat/CPSSummitReport.pdf Here are the basic principles: Current best practices for children riding in motor vehicles are: � Infants should be in a rear-facing safety seat until they have reached at least one year of age and weigh at least 20 pounds (in a safety seat that accommodates higher rear-facing weights, the child should remain rear-facing until reaching the maximum weight/height for the safety seat); � Children older than one year, who are between 20 and 40 pounds, should be in a forward-facing safety seat; � Children who have exceeded the height or weight limit for their forward-facing safety seat, and are less than 4�9� tall, should be in a booster seat until the safety belt fits correctly; � Children should be in a properly adjusted safety belt when the shoulder belt can be positioned across the chest with the lap belt low and snug across the thighs; and � Children age 12 and under should ride in the rear seat. And related to front seat vs. rear seat (keep your kids in the back seat in an appropriate restraint system as long as possible even if they seem to be "adult" enough to ride in the front): Riding in the front seat is inherently more risky for young children than riding in a rear seating position. Several studies have looked at the reduced risk of deaths for children riding in the back and the results have been consistent. The previously cited Partyka (1998) study examined child fatality risk for various combinations of driver and child restraint status. It found that rear seat occupancy decreased a child�s risk of fatal injury by an average of 26 percent. NCSA (1996) also reported a 26 percent lower fatality risk for children in the rear seat. More recently, an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study (Braver et al., 1997) estimated that, among children (ages 0-12), riding in the rear seat was associated with a 35 percent lower risk of death in vehicles without passenger-side air bags and a 50 percent lower risk in vehicles with passenger-side air bags. These studies found the rear seat to be associated with lower risk for both restrained and unrestrained children. The NHTSA info about kids and motor vehicle safety etc. is located here for completeness: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju.../pages/TOC.htm Regards, Marc

5 pt racing harness for everyone???? :-) My only thought here, Pcar is plenty safe as long as you don't come in contact with a dump truck or something. At the point all occupants would be in trouble....

This is not what you want to hear but nevertheless is one fella's view: -for anyone to argue that a 911 is a safe choice for transporting kids is delusional. Yes, it can be done and there are many here who have crammed in car seats and kids to prove it. That said, there is little side impact protection and, G*d forbid you get rear-ended, where do you think that great flat-six is going to end up? And, in a rollover...cmon. -if you give a crap about what your wife (or ex) is saying, you will do the smart thing and 1) keep your C2 Cab, and 2) spend $5K on an old Volvo and make her happy while you have the kids. -if you don't give a crap, I wish you safe travels and much good luck. If you ever crash the car with the kids in it and the unthinkable happens, you and your kids will never forgive you. It sucks growing up. -- M

An old Volvo actually might be worse than a newer Porsche, regardless of coupe or convertible, for surviving a crash from front, rear, or side. I'd rather have current Porsche than old Volvo personally. Engines and the structures around them are typically designed to submarine beneath the car when the car is impacted from front or rear (depending on engine location of course ;-)). Regards, Marc

Well that was pretty patronizing. And suggesting that getting a 10 year old Volvo is going to be "smart" is pretty unhelpful too. It's an older car, which also doesn't have side airbags or any substantial improvement over the reinforced steel unibody of a 996. Mentioning a rollover on a street vehicle is almost completely irrelevant: we all know how rare that is off the racetrack, and that the few street rollovers are concentrated in tall cars like SUVs. To the OP, if you let yourself get sucked into this delusion that size = safety, you'll find yourself in an ill-handling oversized SUV before you know it.

Rollovers are not that rare in fatality accidents or injury accidents. The data below is for 2002 and the source is: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/2002ann.../rollovers.htm If you look at the statistics for accidents that involved any fatalities (deaths), for passenger cars, 23% of those accidents were in rollover accidents. For SUVs it is 61% were rollovers. If you only look at accidents that involved injuries, then 6% of those accidents were rollovers for passenger cars, 18% of the accidents were in SUVs. 6 out of 100 accidents that have injuries is not rare, at least in my book. Regards, Marc

That little boy, God bless his family, died because the minivan rolled over and his seatbelt malfunctioned. A Porsche might have not rolled over given the same scenario, and the seatbelt, well who knows.

Along the lines of helping you... I'd point out that 911s have great brakes and can avoid accidents in ways larger cars can't ( http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/sa...02-crash.html) . I'd point out that German cars are well engineered and have all of the latest safety features. That safety has always been a priority for German engineerers who pioneered crash testing and used to lift cars up and drop them front first into the ground to simulate crashes years before companies from other countries. Also I can't find a link to it, but I remember hearing a statistic a couple of years ago that over a five year period, that only five people died in 911s during that time. If anyone has a link to that stat, it would help.

We have a culture that says we do everything, absolutely everything, to protect our kids wherever and whenever possible, and the challenge is finding the right balance between living life and manging risk. Our cars are some of the safest ever built, and the combination of agility, stopping power, and rigidity (along with airbags aplenty) tells me that my kids, properly restrained, are safe to bring with me. There may be a .025 higher risk factor to taking them to school in the Porsche vs. an Excursion, but that is not a statistically significant enough number for me to buy us all Excursions. The little boy died because the seatbelt malfunctioned - whether he was in a car seat or not, the seatbelt would have done the same thing, and would it have changed the outcome? After the loss of a child, the tendency would be there to always think you could have done more than you did, but if you drive thoughfully and responsibly, with your kids properly restrained, I would not hesitate to throw them in the Porsche for a drive to the beach for a picnic.

What about when there are only two seats? You aren't supposed to bring your kid at all? I fully believe in the front seat rear seat thing, but when there IS ONLY the front seat, like in a Cayman, in Porsche speak, or an S2000 in Honda Speak, or a Corvette? I have had my guy wear his normal seatbelt sitting on a push up booster in the S2000. I think I will figure something more robust out, but even in the wife's TL he is strapped in by the OEM belt sitting on a full booster seat that is anchored to the car.

First, your wife is always right, if you know what I mean. Concede and you'll be in better position for whatever rationalization comes next. My argument is that I love my 996 cab and my boys (3 & 8 yrs old) love it too. It may or may not be as safe as some swedish brick but it's a passion that I enjoy sharing with my sons. That said, I drive more conservatively when they're in the car. Good luck.

The second factor that pushed me into a 996 besides the rear end look was SAFETY! No engine to crush your legs and hips with endless space to crumple in the front. The cabs of these cars are tank-like (thanks wrecked exotics.com). The only crappy thing about our cars is the fact, the higher the horsepower, the more reinforcement they put into the cabs. You can see this on Porsche's website under safety. I wish all the lower level 911's got the same reinforcements because crashes usually occur at about the same speeds. What I mean is just because a turbo or GT2 can go 20-30 mph faster in top speed than the non-turbo doesnt mean you crash at top speeds, crashes are usually less than top speeds so the impacts are roughly the same. And I too couldnt find data on these cars but after looking at many, many pics on wrecked exotics, I knew this car was safe. Ferrari well....horrible at crashing, especially the Enzo's...that is an expensive, bad a#s tomb on wheels.

When I was a kid I drove around in my Dad's 912. There was no such thing as car seats. The seat belts worked, but only if you really spent time adjusting them, which only sometimes happened. I am sure I would have been decapitated at age 10 in the front seat. It was totally legal to drive without car seats and belts. It was however, illegal to drink a 6 pack on the freeway, which my father explained was perfectly legal when he had his Austin Healey only 20 or so years before. So things change. The 996 is so much safer than what I had as a kid, that I don't anticipate this argument from my wife. We have already talked about how to get the kid into the 911. (hey's that why we didn't get a Boxster... right? In fact, the 996 is safer than the S10 pickup which would be the alternative on my side of the driving stable. Whenever auto safety comes up, I always advocate 5-points, and SA helmets for regular street driving. People look at me like I'm nuts, and I tell them that's what they said when Volvo added seat belts... safety versus convenience is a personal choice. You can always be safer. Always. Often it is not worth it. Hence the lack of SA helmet'ed auto drivers on the freeway. Seems like for motorcycles the logic is different. For reference, it is interesting to note that the odds of dying: from Heart Disease: 1 in 5 from Cancer: 1in 7 from Stroke: 1 in 24 from Motor Vehicle Accident: 1 in 84 from Suicide: 1 in 119 http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg Anyway, the point is: buy a modern car, don't drink and drive, and worry about your diet, not dying in a wreck...

"Living is hazardous to your health." - Johnny Carson

I read an article that said that there are a lot of women that will have a man sell his sports car and buy a minivan after they get married because she doesn't want other women noticing and possibly flirting with him. (That also explains the ugly shirts that many women buy for their husbands.) The article also said that this often backfires because then they lose attraction to him as well. It is dangerous to let a woman control you because they are not attracted to submissive men. The urge to get you out of the car might not be about the kids at all since it's an unreasonable position to take that Porsches are per se dangerous (and what's the old saying, 'when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains no matter how improbable must be the truth')...

Fishman, I'm in deep trouble. Wife helped pick out my pcar and lots of "nice" shirts. Do you think she is trying to tell me something? WTF!

Here's my 2 cents - when I'm driving my 996, I'm in OWL mode (eyes and head looking in all directions). I'm outrageously attentive and very aware of my surroundings. Accidents that are other peoples fault are still potentially avoidable (or at least can be made less destructive) if the person who got hit had a little time to react to an impending accident. I'm absolutely not saying this lady is at any fault, but what would have been the outcome if she had a few seconds to react - minivan oversteer, mushy brakes, no HP to move out of the way... I'd rather be in a potential collision situation in a 996 than in a minivan. I know that if I turn the wheel or step on the brake, the response is near instantaneous. I've had near misses in both my 996 and the wifes Expedition and, while I avoided an accident in both, it's a lot of work to keep an SUV or a van in control during evasive maneuvers. Prime example - my wife was driving on the Lake Pontchatrain Causeway (24 mile bridge with 2 lanes in either direction and a few crossover turnarounds) in her Expedition. She's in the right lane doing 65 (speed limit) and a pickup truck and a PT Cruiser pass her. She thought the PT was following a bit close and throttled back a bit just as the truck hit the brakes and made a left into one of the turnarounds. Wife hits the brakes anticpating the PT slamming into the back of the truck...and it did. It then spun 90 degrees into her lane (since it didn't have anymore wheels in the front to steer it). Because she was already on the brakes (only now much harder), her impact to the PT was minimal to the point that the kids (4 in booster, 7 in reg seat with seatbelt angle adjuster) simply looked up from their movie and said "mom, why'd you stop?". The PT was totaled and popped every airbag, the *** that stopped short took off and wasn't caught but probably had reasonable damage to his turck bed, and the Expedition needed a new front L fender, foglight, and bumper cover (no airbag deployment). Nobody was seriously injured, no vehicles fell off the bridge (which happens from time to time) and I, after receiving the call, hauled *** and met them on the bridge. I drove the truck home and thanked my wife for paying attention.

I always watch out for large SUV and moms with child seat because they are not attentive when they drive. They often yell or look at the kids and not pay attention. Not to mention that most mom don't drive well -- including my own. IMO, your response should conceed that a 5 pt harness is better than a 3 pt seat belt. You will look into getting some 5 pt harness seats for all the kids. 996 has tether too so use that as well. This is an appropriate and reasonable response to your wife. Her request to sell the car seem far reached in comparison. I think she is insecure or maybe jealous. I see so many couples driving miserable cars (minivan, truck, suv, sedans) just because each don't want the other to have fun and unwanted attention. As for protection, Seatbelts aren't 100% effective in roll over. But the pretensioner do a better job in locking the belt and keeping the occupant in place. Not sure if the minivan had it. As for side impact protection, there are a few high strength steel bars across the door, rear quarter of the car. I have not seen a 996 sheared in 1/2 ever. Minivan has weaker side protection IMO with the sliding door and high center of mass that tends to roll when broadsided.