**If bad language offends you don't read this post** Angry rant and vent!! Not F*@#%$*! happy Aussie car seat manufacturers (Safe-n-Sound exempt so far)

So Australian car seat manufacturers, with the exception so far of Safe n Sound, are pissing me off with their complete lack of customer service, information and drive to reach for anything other than the absolute MINIMUM safety requirements. I have been doing a bit of letter writing to manufacturers, members of parliament, Standards Australia and the ACCC pushing for type D (extended rear-facing seats) in Australia. Well the manufacturers are crap! The latest response I have received, from IGC Dorel, aka- Mothers Choice, Safety 1st, ZuZu, just to name a few they own, was major fuck up on their behalf. Not only did the reply contain a bit of nonsense, but they sent me the complete email with the trail of just about everyone it had been to and their comments. I'm adding the complete email trail below, beginning with mine sent to them. It shows their absolute lack of interest in providing a seat with the ability to rear-face past 12 months, and disregard of customer suggestions along with the need for retraining their staff in the sending of a simple email LOL
So they're happy with manufacturing seats that are okay, not leading in superior safety, or even humouring consumers. Just meh whatever, it passes the standards so it'll do. Well hopefully they lose out big time once Safe n Sound (if they do indeed come good with their saying they want to make an ERF seat for Aussie Kids) or if we can ever start to share international standards and use international seats. Maybe us parents pushing now will get the last laugh then! I'll personally send them a farewell card :)
The email follows below in red and white I've added what I would LOVE to send as my response to them. But I won't, I'll be a bit more grown up about it and respond in a mature fashion, with just a touch of sarcasm ;)

____________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----

From: Lisa 

Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 9:35 PM

To: info@nurseryelegance.com.au

Subject: No Subject

I’m writing to you as a concerned parent and consumer about the lack of availability of type D child restraints here in Australia.

After much personal research I have learnt that keeping a child rear-facing in the car for as long as possible is the safest way for children to travel.  Rear-facing until the age of 4 years old at least, is most beneficial. As I’m sure you are already aware, it has been proven to be 5 times safer than forward-facing.

I understand Australia has some of the most stringent safety standards for child restraints but I am shocked, and disappointed, that we do not recognise rear-facing for as long as possible, to be the safest option, even though there is already the provision for use of type D restraints in the road rules, Australian Road Rule Number 266 (2A) states:

“If the passenger is 6 months old or older, but is less than 4 years old, he or she must be restrained in a suitable and properly fastened and adjusted –

(a) Rearward facing approved child restraint; or

(b) Forward facing approved child restraint that has an inbuilt harness.”

Also in the Australian Standards, AS/NZS 1754, Type Designation as:

“Type D Rearward facing chair with harness, suitable for children 6 months to 4 years of age.”

Legally there is no reason these seats can’t be manufactured and used here, yet parents don’t have the seats available to them. It seems that it is ok to turn a six month old baby forward-facing, and there are seats available to accommodate this, even though it is not the safest way for such a young and physically underdeveloped baby to travel. But for those of us wishing to keep our children safer for longer there is absolutely no option to do so.  It just doesn’t seem right to me, and I feel that our children are being denied the ability to be the safest they possibly can be when in the car.

I’ve heard there is no market for these seats here.  However, there is a growing demand for extended rear-facing seats, due to parents becoming more aware of its safety benefits. There are several social media sites, Facebook pages and blogs, growing in numbers by the day that are educating even more parents and consumers, and creating an increasing demand for seats that are currently not available. Along with petitions, and more articles in the mainstream media regarding the safety benefits of extended rear-facing.

The American Academy of Paediatrics now recommends rear-facing children to a minimum of 2 years old.

Countries such as Sweden, rear-face their children until at least 4 years old, and they have the lowest fatalities in children 0-10 years due to car accidents. I don’t understand why our children deserve less than children overseas.

Roads, vehicles and driving styles may differ between here, the US and Europe, but the laws of physics don’t. Top tethers and anti rebound bars on seats may result in more stability in an accident, but the head and extremities not held back by the harness, still continue to be thrown forward with extreme force.  This could be so easily avoided by using a rear-facing seat to support the child more effectively.

I am extremely happy to hear of the introduction of ISOFIX into the Australian Standards. I think this will help with ease of installation, and cut misuse incidents greatly.

What would be a great step forward for Australian child passenger safety along with ISOFIX would be the addition of type D seats for sale and use in Australia.

As a parent wanting the best in child passenger safety for her children and generations of children to come, I’m hoping to see manufactures making type D seats available to Australian consumers in the very near future.

Yours sincerely,

Lisa Patterson.

_____________________________________________________

Dear Lisa

You are correct with your research. There are a number of problems which require attention, the  Australian standards AS/NZS 1754:2010 calls up additional head protection and a tether strap must be used at all times. Many seats that are manufactured overseas, don't require the use of the top strap and side head protection is also not required or tested. In Australia these requirements are mandatory.

Another issue which is some times over looked is the child's leg position, a older child's legs are cramped

I know that the CS 085 child committee has had discussions on this subject and are currently looking at these issues.

Currently we have manufactured a new seat called : Maxi cosi Hera model no CCA2010 which allows the child to be rear facing up to the age of 12 months or until the child's shoulders reach the upper height markers. 

Kind Regards,

Alan Tanner

Research and Development Manager

____________________

IGC Dorel Pty Ltd

655-685 Somerville Rd.

West Sunshine VIC 3020

Phone: +61(3) 8311 5357

Fax:    +61(3) 8311 5390

Email: Alan.Tanner@igcdorel.com.au

Thank you Alan for your reply. Yes I understand we require a mandatory top tether and head protection, oh and did you forget side impact protection too? So design a type D seat with those features! There are seats available overseas with said features so what the fuck is the problem here?

Obviously even though you said yourself I am correct in my research, and that rear-facing is indeed safer, it appears you still have no interest in producing a seat to rear-face as a superior safety choice for Australian children, why not?

I don't believe I have overlooked the issue of cramped legs in older children, especially seeing as it is a load of crap! Unlike you, obviously, I have researched other seats designed for older children that are used widely on a daily basis in Europe and the US and they seem to have overcome this Australian 'issue'and produced seats in which the kids are comfortable.(Or will you now tell me our kids have different legs than those of their overseas counterparts?) Also you do understand children are a lot more flexible than adults and rarely sit with their legs out straight or perfectly bent at the knee hanging over their chair FFS.

 Are you seriously the research and development manager? You don't seem to have done a lot of research into this in my opinion, and your development appears to be extremely slow compared to other parts of the world. If you have been researching, you clearly don't give a shit, or more likely because you're making quite enough money out of the seats you're selling now, so why bother hey.

I too already know that the CS 085 Child Committee are looking into this, so at what point are you going to tell me something I don't already know?  

Oh and woo fricken hoo for your Maxi-Cosi Hera rear-facing until APPROX 12 months seat. You have been able to get seats like that for quite some time here now so don't pat yourselves on the back too much there, you're not exactly ahead of the pack!

But thank you Alan for at least pretending to give a shit about my request and the request of other parents for safer seats for our children, and sending me an email full of fluffy nothings. I have obviously come to the wrong place, the child restraint manufacturer, for any improvement to safety without a change to what is mandatory. Maybe if the standards are rewritten you'll have to pull your heads out of your asses and manufacture a decent seat.

I do hope you manufacture seats a hell of a lot better than you send emails, because clearly you have fucked that up today, oh unless of course you wanted me to see the lack of interest in customer care and added safety for our children from the other staff at IGC Dorel that also read my email. I will reply to each of them individually as well.   __________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----

From: Tina Porcha

Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 12:55 PM

To: Alan Tanner

Subject: FW: No Subject

Here it is, sorry Alan !

-----Original Message-----

From: Tina Porcha

Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:13 AM

To: Customer Service Requests; Murray Sparks

Cc: Esra Erbakip; Robert Berchik

Subject: RE: No Subject

We received an email from this same person on this same subject last year and decided not to respond.  She's obviously persistent so perhaps we can prepare a quick response - Alan, can you please action !!!

Tina

          

Actually Tina, no, this is the first communication I have ever had with your company on this matter. So shit hey, looks like there's more than one of us. Who would've thought it?! But I can be persistent especially when patronised and in turn, pissed off! Perhaps you picked the wrong person to ignore! You have a nice day now :)

-----Original Message-----

From: Customer Service Requests

Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 8:45 AM

To: Murray Sparks; Tina Porcha

Cc: Esra Erbakip; Robert Berchik

Subject: FW: No Subject

How would you like to respond to this? Do we even want to respond to this?

Kind regards,

Ben Berchik

Customer Care

IGC Dorel Pty Ltd

 

Ah Ben, says there in your signature you work in customer care. Pfft seems more like 'customer couldn't fucking care less' Why would you not want to respond? Maybe the issues are a little over your head? Because how would an average old consumer possibly know more than you? I think some retraining would benefit you in what your role as customer care should be, because clearly you have no idea!

__________________________________________________