Child's car seat to be replaced following accident

atrixblue.-MFR-.

this thread has become absolute garbage. what the heck pew pew lasers is on about i have no idea but sounds like a total victor meldrew, PEW PEW LASERS may i remind you and everyone else here that people post topics here for.

1.ADVICE

2.REASURANCE

3.GUIDANCE


the op has clearly run away and left you KIDS to squabble about facts,statistics,and manufacturers RECOMENDATIONS and to throw abuse towards eachother.

PEW PEW LASERS you talk about interlect like you have some but clearly not as your squabbling and babbling with others like a teenager out of his depth, interlect should of told you that your post was your opinion offered to the OP if anyone had a problem with your advice you could of simply stated it was your opinion nothing else.

the rest should of not bitten and taken no notice were not in a school playground here.

hope a moderator comes allong shortly and closes this thread, it nothing short of tit for tat and is starting to get abusive.

edit: this is also off topic to the original advice seeked by the OP it is not about safety, but an insurance company not paying the full amount of the original seats cost. as some need reminding.

verybigchris

He may not be the most ... ahem ... diplomatic of users, but Pew Pew has a good point. The recommendations on replacing child seats after minor (or even insignificant) accidents appear to have no solid basis.

The following is from across the Atlantic, specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It shows that small crashes have no effect on child car seats, and even after seats have been damaged in larger accidents they are still effective. I've included the important bits, you can find the original here:

• NHTSA recommends that child safety seats be replaced following a moderate or severe crash.
• NHTSA recommends that child safety seats do not automatically need to be replaced following a minor crash

• Recent studies demonstrate that child safety seats can withstand minor crash impacts without any documented degradation in subsequent performance.
• The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia ( ICBC ) subjected nine new and used child seats restraining 3-year-old dummies to a series of 50 consecutive 15 km/h sled tests into a 40% offset barrier. Three seats were inspected visually; no damage was apparent as a result of the impacts. Three seats underwent x-ray inspection; no damage was detected. Three seats were tested in accordance with Canadian federal standards (CMVSS 213) and were found to be in compliance with all standards.
• ICBC performed four vehicle crash tests at 48 and 64 km/h, with two child seats restraining 3-year-old dummies in each vehicle. Each seat was subjected to multiple impacts and visually inspected. Defects were noted and the seats were re-tested. Seats always performed as well in subsequent tests as they did in the first test.
• The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) performed 30 mph vehicle crash tests with dummies from six months to three years in a variety of child restraint systems (CRSs). Most seats sustained minor damage (e.g., frayed webbing, small cracks in the hard plastic shell, strain-whitening on the plastic shell or chest clip) but all dummies remained well secured by the restraints. Four of the damaged seats were subjected to three additional 30 mph crash tests. Although additional minor damage was observed in subsequent tests, the seats met all federal standards.
• The agency searched for, but was unable to find any cases in which a child safety seats were damaged in a minor crash (as defined in NHTSA Position).

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Now now verybigchris, don't go bringing such things as facts into a discussion about child safety. We all know that hysteria is the response of the day.

mikey72

The Canadian site also states

"Clarifying the need for child seat replacement will reduce the number of children unnecessarily riding without a child safety seat while a replacement seat is being acquired, and the number of children who will have to ride without a child seat if a seat were discarded and not replaced. The clarification will also reduce the financial burden of unnecessary replacement. "


So do canadians throw out the old seat, but not replace it?
I'd agree that even one that appears undamaged would be better than none, and even the full report states that a damaged one would still probably perform to the required testing normally.
The point here though is the op is claiming from a third party, and they should put him back to his original position, of new undamaged seats, which they have agreed to in principle, but capped the claim.
(Interestingly, the American websites all appear to recommend replacements regardless)

mikey72

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Now now verybigchris, don't go bringing such things as facts into a discussion about child safety. We all know that hysteria is the response of the day.

Thought you relied on insults normally.

dacouch

mikey72 wrote: »

The Canadian site also states

"Clarifying the need for child seat replacement will reduce the number of children unnecessarily riding without a child safety seat while a replacement seat is being acquired, and the number of children who will have to ride without a child seat if a seat were discarded and not replaced. The clarification will also reduce the financial burden of unnecessary replacement. "


So do canadians throw out the old seat, but not replace it?
I'd agree that even one that appears undamaged would be better than none, and even the full report states that a damaged one would still probably perform to the required testing normally.
The point here though is the op is claiming from a third party, and they should put him back to his original position, of new undamaged seats, which they have agreed to in principle, but capped the claim.
(Interestingly, the American websites all appear to recommend replacements regardless)

Civil law is not like a home policy, claims are not paid on a new for old basis, the principle of putting someone in the basis they were in prior to the claim would generally mean wear and tear is taken into account when assessing the amount paid out for a replacement. Generally the age of the item and life expectancy are taken into account. This can mean that the full new price is paid but there is no guarantee of this.

So there is a chance the third party may take into account wear and tear, although depending on the value of the item they may just pay the new price

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

.......So there is a chance the third party may take into account wear and tear, although depending on the value of the item they may just pay the new price

This is starting to get circular but, the idea of wear and tear when applied to cars only works because there is an open market in cars so you can buy another two year old car to replace the one that's been damaged. Given that all the safety professionals advise against buying second hand baby seats I struggle to see how the wear and tear argument works.

In any event the OP wasn't about wear & tear, it was about insurance companies attempt to impose a limit of £100 on the replacement seat. I'd say this is fine if it's your own policy but not right if you are claiming against a third party

dacouch

I was replying to a specific post and worded the reply specific to that post.

The existence of an open market for an item does not make a difference to civil settlements eg court. Which is the basis claims from a third party would be settled.

The wear and tear argument in a court would be the payment you receive would take into account any wear and tear and if you want to buy a new replacement you top the cost up yourself.

I agree a third party cannot arbitarily impose a single article limit on an item but should take into account what they legally should pay the claim at.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

mikey72 wrote: »

Thought you relied on insults normally.

No, I don't know where you got that impression from. Perhaps you're easily confused, because it was only after repeated abuse from several posters who added nothing to the discussion did I respond in kind, albeit with far more eloquence than they could ever muster.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

mikey72 wrote: »

The point here though is the op is claiming from a third party, and they should put him back to his original position, of new undamaged seats, which they have agreed to in principle, but capped the claim.

Nobody has yet established if the seats are damaged, so why should the insurance company pay out at all? I view their offer as being in remarkably good faith, and I'd bite their hands off.