Bumper ban?

200 posts / 0 new
Last post
boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984
Bumper ban?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-09-08/news/chi-chicago-may-become-1st-city-to-ban-crib-bumper-pads-20110908_1_bumper-pads-crib-slats-juvenile-products-manufacturers-association

TEXT:
Chicago becomes 1st city to ban crib bumper pads
September 08, 2011|By Ellen Gabler and Hal Dardick | Tribune reporter

Chicago today became the first city in the country to ban the sale of crib bumper pads because the popular products pose a suffocation risk to babies.

The City Council approved the ordinance without debate. It was introduced in response to Tribune investigations that found federal regulators for years have received reports of babies suffocating in cases that involved crib bumpers, yet have failed to warn parents or investigate all deaths.

Bumper pads, which wrap around the inside of a crib and tie to crib slats, are frequently displayed in stores as staples in a baby’s nursery. But babies can lack the motor skills and strength to turn their heads if they roll against something that blocks their breathing.
************************************************************************

Good move? Overkill? What do you think of the crib bumper ban?

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Let parents be parents. Maybe they should just ask that suppliers put a sticker on the packaging. I'm tired of the government constantly passing or trying to pass laws to protect children. If the parents aren't doing the research for crib bumpers, than the child probaby has a whole slew of things that the parents are doing to worry about. Banning the bumpers won't save anyone.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

I think this is a great idea. I find that this is one of those things that otherwise great parents are often uninformed about. Alot of people also have the mindset that if there is no package warning or ban by the govt then it must be safe.

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1316

There are great alternatives to the thick foam bumpers. They have mesh bumpers that are breathable, so if your baby does get wedged into it they can still breathe.

Instead of banning them why can't they just replace the thick bumpers with the mesh ones?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"wlillie" wrote:

Let parents be parents. Maybe they should just ask that suppliers put a sticker on the packaging. I'm tired of the government constantly passing or trying to pass laws to protect children. If the parents aren't doing the research for crib bumpers, than the child probaby has a whole slew of things that the parents are doing to worry about. Banning the bumpers won't save anyone.

I have to disagree. Do you think it should be up to the parents to use car seats? Weather or not to feed your child? Now in most cases I think parents should have the freedom to raise and educate their children how they see fit, but in all things moderation. Rules about safety issues just makes sense.

turtnjay's picture
Joined: 02/24/09
Posts: 2095

I think it's ridiculous.

Seriously. It's banned in one city. So I can go to the next city and get a bumper if I want one. I have used bumpers for all my children and I find them to be wonderful, especially from little arms and legs poking through and getting stuck. This ban does nothing to alert the public about potential hazards and ways to work around them or alternatives. That's what should be happening instead.

As for car seats, growing up we didn't need cars seats, nor did we use seat belts...gasp! How ever am I still alive!!! And my parents used crib bumpers, too!!!

The government ban does nothing except move them one step closer into my life and telling me what, when and where, which I don't approve of.

Bring up feeding a child is off base as that's a neglect/abuse issue and a completely different issue. My CHOICE to use a bumper is not neglect/abuse in any way.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"turtnjay" wrote:

I think it's ridiculous.

Seriously. It's banned in one city. So I can go to the next city and get a bumper if I want one. I have used bumpers for all my children and I find them to be wonderful, especially from little arms and legs poking through and getting stuck. This ban does nothing to alert the public about potential hazards and ways to work around them or alternatives. That's what should be happening instead.

As for car seats, growing up we didn't need cars seats, nor did we use seat belts...gasp! How ever am I still alive!!! And my parents used crib bumpers, too!!!

The government ban does nothing except move them one step closer into my life and telling me what, when and where, which I don't approve of.

Bring up feeding a child is off base as that's a neglect/abuse issue and a completely different issue. My CHOICE to use a bumper is not neglect/abuse in any way.

Wait, just to clarify before I reply, are you actually arguing that because you survived your childhood carseat laws are stupid?

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I have to disagree. Do you think it should be up to the parents to use car seats? Weather or not to feed your child? Now in most cases I think parents should have the freedom to raise and educate their children how they see fit, but in all things moderation. Rules about safety issues just makes sense.

Yep. Exactly what I was going to say!

"Potter75" wrote:

Wait, just to clarify before I reply, are you actually arguing that because you survived your childhood carseat laws are stupid?

This again. I'm always stumped by the notion: Well my parents did this and I'm still alive. Guess what, now they are proving some things are parents did is not SAFE and does cause deaths. Why would they allow parents to continue to do those things?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Also ~ I used to be all "its up to the parents back off government".....then I realized how totally elitist that was.

What I really was saying was "because I have the luxury of being educated and having resources and having the ability to read and understand ever changing research on infant/child safety other parents should too, and if they DON'T have those luxuries, their kids should be put at risk of death". Sooooo, I've changed my tune on this one, when I realized how privileged and calloused my thought process was. Their children don't deserve to die just because Mom and Dad both work all day, or don't have internet, are illiterate, etc.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

Let parents be parents. Maybe they should just ask that suppliers put a sticker on the packaging. I'm tired of the government constantly passing or trying to pass laws to protect children. If the parents aren't doing the research for crib bumpers, than the child probaby has a whole slew of things that the parents are doing to worry about. Banning the bumpers won't save anyone.

I disagree with this. As a busy parent, I don't have time to research every single item that my child comes into contact with, so I do do a certain amount of assuming that if something is commonly used, sold in stores everywhere, doesn't have an obvious safety problem (like strings that could strangle the baby), it's probably relatively safe. It just so happens that I did know about baby bumpers and didn't put them in with my son, but I'm sure there are probably other things that I completely missed, and I would have been happy for a warning on the package at least. I was actually shocked when I took the Baby Safety class at my hospital when I was pregnant and learned that bumpers are unsafe. They are de riguer in every crib set that you see in stores and in pictures. If I had missed class that day, I seriously doubt I would have thought to research whether or not they are safe because they are EVERYWHERE.

carg0612's picture
Joined: 09/23/09
Posts: 1554

"Potter75" wrote:

Also ~ I used to be all "its up to the parents back off government".....then I realized how totally elitist that was.

What I really was saying was "because I have the luxury of being educated and having resources and having the ability to read and understand ever changing research on infant/child safety other parents should too, and if they DON'T have those luxuries, their kids should be put at risk of death". Sooooo, I've changed my tune on this one, when I realized how privileged and calloused my thought process was. Their children don't deserve to die just because Mom and Dad both work all day, or don't have internet, are illiterate, etc.

I have a similar thought process. Not everyone has the same advantages as I have had. Not everyone is capable of doing the research.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

If they banned them federally they might stand a chance ot have it work. However, one city or even one state isn't going to make a difference. How about instead of banning thing (which costs money) they have parenting classes? We have one on base and when we were in Omaha, the city had one that was run on donated money (don't remember the organization). You took four one hour classes and learned all the crap I would have learned anyway on pregnancy.org AND they gave the "graduates" a cosco scenera car seat at the end.

A sticker on the products sold in the stores or a flyer in BabiesRus would be a crap ton more effective than making them "illegal" because parents ($$$who can afford to buy a crib set!!!!!) should know that bumpers aren't safe. And the ones who are getting them second hand or online aren't going to be affected.

It was literally a waste of the politician's time to come up with the law. The money wasted on their time spent could have produced thousands of fliers to hand out at hospitals (are we the only ones that got one?) telling parents about common safety issues. Or stickers to go on the packaging.

eta-What happens when they start banning other things? Like aftermarket car seat inserts or the mighty tight people use? Or the bottle warmers that can overheat milk? Or the blankets that shouldn't be used for the first year? Or the shoes that shouldn't go on an infants feet?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

If they banned them federally they might stand a chance ot have it work. However, one city or even one state isn't going to make a difference. How about instead of banning thing (which costs money) they have parenting classes? We have one on base and when we were in Omaha, the city had one that was run on donated money (don't remember the organization). You took four one hour classes and learned all the crap I would have learned anyway on pregnancy.org AND they gave the "graduates" a cosco scenera car seat at the end.

A sticker on the products sold in the stores or a flyer in BabiesRus would be a crap ton more effective than making them "illegal" because parents ($$$who can afford to buy a crib set!!!!!) should know that bumpers aren't safe. And the ones who are getting them second hand or online aren't going to be affected.

It was literally a waste of the politician's time to come up with the law. The money wasted on their time spent could have produced thousands of fliers to hand out at hospitals (are we the only ones that got one?) telling parents about common safety issues. Or stickers to go on the packaging.

eta-What happens when they start banning other things? Like aftermarket car seat inserts or the mighty tight people use? Or the bottle warmers that can overheat milk? Or the blankets that shouldn't be used for the first year? Or the shoes that shouldn't go on an infants feet?

I guess I just don't see what the point is in companies selling products that are unsafe and that people shouldn't use. I would make a distinction between something that probably isn't going to seriously maim or kill someone (like baby shoes. LOL) and something that is safe to use for most of the population (like blankets - everyone over a certain age can use them pretty safely, so I don't know how you can regulate them.) and something that really has no use and can be fatal, like baby bumpers.

To me, that's like saying that stores should be able to sell food laced with rat poison, as long as they have a sticker so that people can make their own decisions. Or better yet, with no sticker, because you should already know, and if you don't know, oh well, have fun dying! No, that argument makes no sense to me. If study after study shows that something is dangerous, the companies themselves should stop putting them out there, but if they won't (because hello! they're making money off the people who don't know what the risks are) I really don't have a problem with the government stepping in. I guess I just don't get the whole "If someone hasn't researched this extensively for themselves, then they (or their baby) will just have to die" mentality.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I just feel like there are so many things they could decide to make illegal. I don't want them to ever be able to tell me how to parent. Riding in a car isn't a right so the carseat issue is one thing. Especially since the child could hurt other people in a crash if they became projectiles. A bumper is something that is in your own home. It just seems like a waste to make a law they won't really be able to enforce.

If it's really that big of an issue in your town, then why spend the money to make something a law instead of educating people about the dangers?

Seriously, it costs the govenrment about .05 to print something, so why not use the money that was used to come up with this law and give out handouts to people leaving the hospital? Then they could put other safety issues on there and save a lot of babies in one large action that has more affect than a law that is unenforceable.

Why not make it illegal to have baby socks? I know that people wash them and they get hair in them and when they get put back on the kids toe can lose bloodflow if the hair wraps around it. I just think it's crazy to try to regulate things people aren't going to follow anyway.

And exactly how is this town going to take care of the problems with enforcing it? Are they going to go through craigslist and flag the ads? Block ebay listings that have the bumper included? Go through each store and pull the bumper out of the packaging?

Are they banning the breathable kind too?

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I think the ban could be good at getting the word out that they are dangerous. I'd bet you half of the moms on this board used bumpers-- bc nobody talks about how dangerous they can be.

I used them with our first two kids and never thought anything of it-- I"m a very educated person, but got a bumper as a gift and it went with the sheet set....and ya know...we used it. Now our kids survived, but maybe we were just lucky.

Honestly, if it saves one innocent baby's life than the time, energy, cost was worth it.
Remind me again whose lives we are saving with things like the "defense of marriage act"? I believe that it is the role of government to protect innocent lives.....

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Note-- they made SELLING them banned. It's not like you would go to jail or something if you USED one-- they just can't SELL them anymore.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Also ~ I used to be all "its up to the parents back off government".....then I realized how totally elitist that was.

What I really was saying was "because I have the luxury of being educated and having resources and having the ability to read and understand ever changing research on infant/child safety other parents should too, and if they DON'T have those luxuries, their kids should be put at risk of death". Sooooo, I've changed my tune on this one, when I realized how privileged and calloused my thought process was. Their children don't deserve to die just because Mom and Dad both work all day, or don't have internet, are illiterate, etc.

I totally agree with this.

And lots of people are talking about how it is unenforceable, and I dont think that is correct. Maybe it wouldnt be enforced on e-bay or craigslist, or any second hand sellers, but retail stores would have to stop selling them. It would be very easy to have one person spend a few hours a week spot checking and giving tickets or whatever to those stores, and wouldnt even have to be ongoing, just initially to make sure they complied. And just having them out of the stores would be huge, because it would cause people to ask 'why?' they dont sell them, which would lead to education on the issue.

In Canada walkers are illegal. You still occasionally see them for sale second hand, but never in stores and 95% of people dont use them (you can buy them in the US and bring them back, but could have it confiscated at the border). I think if banning something has even that much of an effect, then it is saving lives, which I am all for.

BTW, I am not commenting on the safety of walkers as I have never needed to research it. Just using it as an example of how banning something from sale can be effective.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think it is ridiculous. Are they going to ban baby blankets too? It is recommended that you don't use a blanket either.

I had bumpers with all 4 of my babies. **gasp**
I put all 4 of my babies on their stomach to sleep. **gasp**
All 4 of my babies had a walker they used daily when they were the appropriate age.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't think that the law is "unenforceable." I'm pretty sure that if they make a law stating that stores can no longer sell bumpers, stores won't sell them. Or else risk getting fined or whatever. After just a little bit of stores not selling them, companies will stop making them because their sales base will be gone. Sure, there will be second hand sales and gifts, but I can't imagine that after 10 years or so anyone will even want them because they will be out of vogue. I mean, think about why you even want them now.

I know that when I found out they were dangerous, I felt a little disappointed because all of the cribs I had ever seen had them, and the one I had gotten with my sheet set was super cute. But honestly, they don't really serve much of a purpose any more. Baby bumpers used to be used when cribs had the bars so far apart that the baby could fall out of the crib. Those types of cribs are definitely not recommended any more (I believe they say bars should be too close together to fit a soda can) and not sold any more, so any one following the safety recommendations on cribs shouldn't need bumpers for that reason.

I have heard some people mention that they might prevent minor bumps or bruises when the baby is big enough to pull up, but then you're not supposed to have them in the crib by that point because the baby could use it as a step to climb out of the crib and potentially hurt themselves much worse.

So really, what is the point of bumpers except that they look cute and that's what we think cribs are supposed to look like? If no one sold them any more, I bet it wouldn't take more than a couple of years for new parents to stop thinking that cribs are *supposed* to have bumpers, and before you know it, no one would even care to buy them second hand.

I also don't see how spending a bit of time coming up with a law is supposedly less expensive than the government printing up (and handing out) fliers indefinitely. That would have to be millions of fliers every year that have to be printed (paper, ink, cost to design and probably periodically redesign the fliers, printers, labor, storage, et cetera) and distributed to hospitals (labor, gas, et cetera) forever or until people stop using bumpers on their own. How is that cheaper than passing a law?

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

I'm trying to look at this from both sides. For one, they have no "actual proof" that crib bumpers have caused any infant deaths, just a few deaths of infants that had crib bumpers in their beds. So based on that, I think it's silly to ban this without one shred of physical proof. This is not to say that any more babies should lose their lives risking it, but I've always used a bumper and have never had any issues with baby getting their face stuck down in it. Also, take the bumper away and they could easily get a leg or arm stuck and/or broken because of it. On the other side, I do like that the government regulates these types of items (which is how recalls of cribs and other toys are done) because like others have said, I'm too busy to keep up on all toys and products I buy for my kids. And again, it's only in one city, and it's not illegal to use them, just to buy them in that one place. I'll still use one, so I guess for now it's still up to the parents.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Um-- yes, they have proven that they are actually dangerous.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918165353.htm

This isn't just conjecture. It is a real risk of strangulation/entrapment. Maybe you and I just got lucky, but I wouldn't use one now....knowing what I know now.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"boilermaker" wrote:

Um-- yes, they have proven that they are actually dangerous.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918165353.htm

This isn't just conjecture. It is a real risk of strangulation/entrapment. Maybe you and I just got lucky, but I wouldn't use one now....knowing what I know now.

27 deaths in 20 years out of how many babies that have used bumper pads? Of those 11 they aren't even sure if that was the cause. Wow seems like a really high risk.

In the study, which appears in the September 2007 issue of The Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed three U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission databases for deaths related to crib bumpers and crib-related injuries from 1985-2005. They found 27 accidental deaths reported by authorities of children from 1 month old to 2 years old that were attributed to suffocation or strangulation by bumper pads or their ties. They also found 25 non-fatal injuries in infants attributed to bumper pads.

Of the deaths in which there was a formal investigation, 11 infants likely suffocated when their face rested against the bumper pad, 13 infants died from being wedged between the bumper pad and another object and three infants died from strangulation by a bumper tie.

The researchers indicated that their study is limited because of under reporting of cases and lack of a consistent protocol of scene investigations and autopsies.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

But if my kid were one of the 27-- you bet I'd care.

I don't get the emotional attachment to bumpers.....

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

It's not an attachment to bumpters. It's a slippery slope with parenting decisions. If they can make a bedding decisions, what is going to stop them from making another decision? Seriously, are they going to decide that after market car seat inserts are illegal? That slings are illegal? That glass bottles are illegal? That sippy cups are illegal? That baby wipe warmers are illegal? Outlet covers? Sleep positioners? Strollers? Swings? Gates? Lotion? Baby Wash? Baby Powder? Bath seats?

All of those things can cause harm to a baby. *All* of them. Do we really want people who don't know us or our babies making these decisions?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"boilermaker" wrote:

But if my kid were one of the 27-- you bet I'd care.

I don't get the emotional attachment to bumpers.....

Yet I'm sure you do things with your children every day that have a higher risk than the
.00000035% chance that your child would suffocate in a bumper. You probably have a higher chance of winning the lottery.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Yet I'm sure you do things with your children every day that have a higher risk than the
.00000035% chance that your child would suffocate in a bumper. You probably have a higher chance of winning the lottery.

I bet all of those risky things that I do at least serve some purpose to my child or our lives. What is the purpose of a baby bumper? Seriously, I do not understand some people's devotion to something that seems to serve no purpose, and could potentially kill their kid.

I know a couple of people have mentioned the child breaking a leg or arm without a bumper, but I don't even know what that means. Are they picturing little baby arms and legs getting wedged between the bars? I guess I really only have experience with a couple of modern cribs (mine, and the cribs of some of my family and friends) but they have all had bars that were close enough together that the baby couldn't put their head through, but far enough apart that a little spindly baby arm wouldn't get stuck either. So I can't picture how babies are supposed to be breaking their limbs without a bumper.

Lillie - I get what you're saying, but the opposite argument is do you think that the government should not have any safety regulations whatsoever? Should we still be painting houses/cribs with lead based paint if we want? I think it's a good thing that the government tries to look out for people and keep them from getting unneccessarily hurt when possible. I would say that out of everything you listed in your list, crib bumpers are by far the most unneccessary. I still don't know what purpose they are supposed to serve in modern cribs except to look cute.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

I don't see why they are necessary in the first place. They're stupid hunks of wasted quilt. A tiny baby isn't rolling into the (bare) bars. A bigger baby can roll away (from bare bars). An even bigger baby can use a bumper to assist in an escape. That's at best. At worst, they kill babies.

I'm all for the ban.

Edited for clarification.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I bet all of those risky things that I do at least serve some purpose to my child or our lives. What is the purpose of a baby bumper? Seriously, I do not understand some people's devotion to something that seems to serve no purpose, and could potentially kill their kid.

I know a couple of people have mentioned the child breaking a leg or arm without a bumper, but I don't even know what that means. Are they picturing little baby arms and legs getting wedged between the bars? I guess I really only have experience with a couple of modern cribs (mine, and the cribs of some of my family and friends) but they have all had bars that were close enough together that the baby couldn't put their head through, but far enough apart that a little spindly baby arm wouldn't get stuck either. So I can't picture how babies are supposed to be breaking their limbs without a bumper.

My babies moved around a lot in their sleep. I found them more than once with a leg hanging out the bars after they were old enough that I took the bumpers off. It might not break their leg but they were sure uncomfortable enough to scream about it.

Did you use a baby blanket? Did you know that they recommend that you don't use a blanket either but instead one of those bunting sleepers?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

My babies moved around a lot in their sleep. I found them more than once with a leg hanging out the bars after they were old enough that I took the bumpers off. It might not break their leg but they were sure uncomfortable enough to scream about it.

Did you use a baby blanket? Did you know that they recommend that you don't use a blanket either but instead one of those bunting sleepers?

I would rather uncomfortable for a minute until I came to rescue them than dead.

No, I didn't use baby blankets. I used those blanket sleepers until he was over a year old.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I would rather uncomfortable for a minute until I came to rescue them than dead.

No, I didn't use baby blankets. I used those blanket sleepers until he was over a year old.

I guess I was willing to live dangerously and take that .0000000000035% risk.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

My babies move a lot when they sleep, too. But for our second two kids (after we learned of the dangers) they did just fine. I can recall a total of *maybe* three times when they got an arm wedged in there-- but it was discomfort-- not injury. Once I moved them, they were fine....I don't use whether they cry or not as a basis for whether or not I'll do something (my kids have cried more than once when I buckled them into a carseat....and when I gave them vaxes....etc.)

IMO-- they just have very little benefit and high risk.

And Lillie-- they DO regulate those things for safety and recall them if they are not safe. There is just no way to make a traditional crib bumper safe (unless you get the mesh kind, which I don't consider a bumper so much....and I assume those will still be sold in Chi-town.)

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I will never forget what one of my HS teachers taught me about government regulation. First he read an article about how things used to be in food factories. Rats and all kinds of other rodents in the food and all over the place, people going the bathroom right there and all kinds of other gross things. The government then stepping in and making some regulations that really made the situation better. The teacher then read an article about business that were so stifled with over regulation that they could not compete with foreign markets. This was not helpful to anyone. The lecture really pointed out the importance of balance when it comes to government regulation. No, I do not want the government to tell me how to raise my children, but yes I do want there to be some laws and regulations to keep our communities running smoothly.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"boilermaker" wrote:

My babies move a lot when they sleep, too. But for our second two kids (after we learned of the dangers) they did just fine. I can recall a total of *maybe* three times when they got an arm wedged in there-- but it was discomfort-- not injury. Once I moved them, they were fine....I don't use whether they cry or not as a basis for whether or not I'll do something (my kids have cried more than once when I buckled them into a carseat....and when I gave them vaxes....etc.)

IMO-- they just have very little benefit and high risk.

And Lillie-- they DO regulate those things for safety and recall them if they are not safe. There is just no way to make a traditional crib bumper safe (unless you get the mesh kind, which I don't consider a bumper so much....and I assume those will still be sold in Chi-town.)

HIGH risk? 4 million babies born in a year in the U.S., lets say only 50% used bumpers though it's probably higher. Thats 27 out of 40,000,000 in 20 years or .0000675%

So in YOUR opinion that is high risk. Why should your opinion be made into a law when the risk is negligible? That's probably why they don't have the actual statistics posted anywhere, because they are so small they can't even put a percentage on it.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

I used bumper pads and am aware of the miniscule risk associated with them.

It all about common sense. I don't use them when the baby is very young and can't move all that well yet... Because God forbid, they somehow got entangled or smothered or whatever they wouldn't be able to move and free themselves.

However, I put the bumper in when they were 4ish months old. At that age they started waking themselves up because they would bang into the rails or get an arm or leg stuck. At that age, they can also hold their head up well, push up on their arms, roll both ways, and scoot around on their tummies (my kids could anyways).

I have a thin bumper with short ties. One son in particular slept with his face pressed against the corner of the bumper every night. It isn't thick enough to smother.

I don't think bumpers and carseat are an accurate comparison.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

But you are risking death. Of an infant. That is the "high risk" to me-- not the frequency of how often it happens, but the outcome of death. And with no tangible benefit from having used a bumper. Risk w no benefit IMO.

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"boilermaker" wrote:

But you are risking death. Of an infant. That is the "high risk" to me-- not the frequency of how often it happens, but the outcome of death. And with no tangible benefit from having used a bumper. Risk w no benefit IMO.

This.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

HIGH risk? 4 million babies born in a year in the U.S., lets say only 50% used bumpers though it's probably higher. Thats 27 out of 40,000,000 in 20 years or .0000675%

So in YOUR opinion that is high risk. Why should your opinion be made into a law when the risk is negligible? That's probably why they don't have the actual statistics posted anywhere, because they are so small they can't even put a percentage on it.

Risk of suffocation is not the only reason not to use bumpers. There has also been a link to them and SIDs because they restrict airflow through the crib. I will look for the studies, but I do belive the risk is bigger than you are making it out to be.

But honestly, no matter what percentage the risk, I dont get why people would even want to use them. They have no safety purpose, yet pose a risk (any risk). Whats the point?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"boilermaker" wrote:

But you are risking death. Of an infant. That is the "high risk" to me-- not the frequency of how often it happens, but the outcome of death. And with no tangible benefit from having used a bumper. Risk w no benefit IMO.

Yes, exactly. If bumpers were shown to be really beneficial in some way, I might feel differently, but the idea that it's basically a crib decoration and it could kill your baby for no reason - that seems like a terrible trade off to me.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"boilermaker" wrote:

But you are risking death. Of an infant. That is the "high risk" to me-- not the frequency of how often it happens, but the outcome of death. And with no tangible benefit from having used a bumper. Risk w no benefit IMO.

But you risk death with all sorts of things we do every day. Every time you get in a car, plane, give a medication or vaccination, sometimes soothers break off the chokes, every small toy in a house, etc. are all risks. Frequency of incident does matter. Sometimes freak accidents happen, but that doesn't mean the action was inherently dangerous. Somethings are statically insignificant.

Safety is undeniably important. Personally though, I really don't see bumpers as unsafe (well, the old super dense and thick ones with an almost vinyl covering are, but not modern ones).

The thing is no one is forcing you to use one, but if someone thinks they are useful, they should be able to use one.

ETA About kids climbing out of cribs by standing on the bumper... Those must be awfully dense ones and definitely dangerous in my mind. If my kids stood on theirs, it would just smush down.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

You know what I HATE seeing on kids? Those amber teething necklaces that people put around their baby's neck. And hoodies/sweaters with draw strings.

There is no speculation that putting a string around an infants neck is a bad idea, yet people do it all the time.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

Yeah-- teething necklace seems like a bad idea. So do drawstrings around the neck (but don't get me started on the tangent about how I wish they still had them in pants but tacked into the back....I have a really skinny boy....I digress.....) But CPSC has already banned those items and won't approve them for sale (yes, people make them at home....but they aren't mass marketed like crib bumpers.)

But driving and flying, etc-- they have a positive trade-off. Nobody can deny that. What is the positive benefit of bumpers?

I get that there is risk in everything-- I do. And I'm not saying that a ban was the best way to get the message out-- but the truth is that LOTS of people still use them, even though there is some risk involved.

And modern bumpers? I see big squishy ones for sale all.of.the.time.

http://www.potterybarnkids.com/products/hayley-nursery-bedding/?pkey=rromnurhly

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

"boilermaker" wrote:

Yeah-- teething necklace seems like a bad idea. So do drawstrings around the neck (but don't get me started on the tangent about how I wish they still had them in pants but tacked into the back....I have a really skinny boy....I digress.....) But CPSC has already banned those items and won't approve them for sale (yes, people make them at home....but they aren't mass marketed like crib bumpers.)

But driving and flying, etc-- they have a positive trade-off. Nobody can deny that. What is the positive benefit of bumpers?

I get that there is risk in everything-- I do. And I'm not saying that a ban was the best way to get the message out-- but the truth is that LOTS of people still use them, even though there is some risk involved.

And modern bumpers? I see big squishy ones for sale all.of.the.time.

http://www.potterybarnkids.com/products/hayley-nursery-bedding/?pkey=rromnurhly

I've done my research and I think the extremely small risk in using the bumper pad is worth the trade off of my babies not waking themselves up constantly by rolling over and crashing into the rails (maybe my kids just move a lot, but it honestly makes a loud crash - sometimes waking me up) and getting their arms and legs wedged into the rails. Each to their own.

The fluffy blankets and quilts that come with most bedding sets are far more dangerous than the bumper, imo.

I've seen some older bumpers that are probably dangerous. The one I have is safe. You can breathe through it, can't get tangled in the strings, and can't use it to climb on. And so I've used it for 4 kids, without incident.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

That's right. Besides the sheet and the bedskirt, *ALL* of the bedding in the packages people buy shouldn't be used in a crib. So why not ban everything except the sheets? The bedskirt isn't even needed. How about the pacifier holders?

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

Here's what should be in your baby's crib:

A fitted sheet
Your baby

That's it. (my babies don't use paci's so that's null.)

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"wlillie" wrote:

That's right. Besides the sheet and the bedskirt, *ALL* of the bedding in the packages people buy shouldn't be used in a crib. So why not ban everything except the sheets? The bedskirt isn't even needed. How about the pacifier holders?

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

Here's what should be in your baby's crib:

A fitted sheet
Your baby

That's it. (my babies don't use paci's so that's null.)

Thats not exactly true. My 22 month old now uses a blanket and pillow, yet is still in his crib. So those things in crib size are handy for older ages. Not to mention that a toddler bed is the same size as a crib, so use the same bedding.

And why would you ban something just because it isnt needed? That makes no sense.

Joined: 11/29/06
Posts: 1316

"boilermaker" wrote:

But you are risking death. Of an infant. That is the "high risk" to me-- not the frequency of how often it happens, but the outcome of death. And with no tangible benefit from having used a bumper. Risk w no benefit IMO.

This!

They serve no benefit except to prevent baby's legs from getting caught in the bars. If this is the case, why can't they get mesh bumpers that are breathable instead of the big quilted ones? Or why not take 5 minutes to go get your baby unstuck?

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

"ftmom" wrote:

Thats not exactly true. My 22 month old now uses a blanket and pillow, yet is still in his crib. So those things in crib size are handy for older ages. Not to mention that a toddler bed is the same size as a crib, so use the same bedding.

And why would you ban something just because it isnt needed? That makes no sense.

A 22 month old (while they will always be our 'babies') is not technically a baby. I'm talking about infants. Bumpers are doubly unnecessary in a toddler bed.

There are lots of needless things that don't need banning because they don't happen to kill babies.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

Every time I start to weigh in on this one I realize I'm not sure where I stand. My instinct is that it's just too much. I think it's over the top. There are a million different baby items that can hurt a baby and banning them is just part of what my husband calls a "helmet-wearing" culture, he thinks soon we'll all be forced to wear helmets when we got for a walk. Smile But I get where he's coming from and to me, this fits in.

That said, I know there is a danger there, with bumpers, and they need to make people aware of it. I still think awareness is better than a ban, but maybe the ban is more cost-effective. I don't know.

We used bumpers...we needed them. We tried removing them and our babies got banged up so we put them back. They were great to have, I considered them very useful.

So....I honestly thing the ban is extreme and unnecessary. I'm much more freaked out by pacifiers with strings pinned to a baby than bumpers.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

A 22 month old (while they will always be our 'babies') is not technically a baby. I'm talking about infants. Bumpers are doubly unnecessary in a toddler bed.

There are lots of needless things that don't need banning because they don't happen to kill babies.

I think we are on the same page on this one. My point was perhaps more directed towards wlillie than you. I was trying to demonstrate that crib size blankets etc. do have their uses for those of us that use the crib longer, or use a toddler size bed, so if you banned them I would have to use a larger blanket which could be dangerous for my little one in such a small space. I agree with you about an infants bed, and about bumpers being unnecessary (DS would probably use them as a ladder). I also agree with you about not banning needless things. That was directed at wlillie saying that bedskirts were unnecessary. They dont harm anyone, and they hide the boxes of baby clothes I store under the crib, so I like them:)

Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

We used crib bumpers and found them very useful, especially for my 2nd child. She had sleep apnea and would literally thrash about in her bed. I removed the bumpers once she was able to pull-up because I feared she could somehow use them to climb out. But she would wake up with bruises from banging into the bars all night so back on they went. Had bumpers been banned in my city I would have traveled to buy one.

RebeccaA'07's picture
Joined: 11/19/07
Posts: 1628

"wlillie" wrote:

That's right. Besides the sheet and the bedskirt, *ALL* of the bedding in the packages people buy shouldn't be used in a crib. So why not ban everything except the sheets? The bedskirt isn't even needed. How about the pacifier holders?

I didn't know bedskirts or paci holders killed babies?

Pages