What’s brand new, highly innovative and currently the talk of the [carseat] town? Why, the new Graco 3-in-1 Smart Seat, of course! I was so psyched when I saw this seat for the first time at the ABC Expo last autumn. It’s no secret that I love new CRs and I get really excited when I see a brand new concept or design. So now that you know what turns me on – let’s review this hot new product!
The Smart Seat provided by Graco for this review is the “Signature Series” in the Jessica pattern. A new girly fabric named Jemma is now available. Also new, a more gender-neutral pattern called Rosin. MSRP is $299.
Smart Seat Features:
Stay-In-Car Smart Base - Similar to an infant carseat design, the Smart Seat utilizes a unique, heavy-duty base that installs with either lower LATCH anchors or seatbelt. An extra base can also be purchased separately. The sturdy, built-in lockoff device is only used for seatbelt installations. The lower LATCH connectors are the hook-style but these aren’t the standard hook connectors that you normally see. These are clearly heavy-duty connectors. The seat is locked onto the base in either the rear or forward-facing position. If the seat is going to be used in the forward-facing position – you need to attach the top tether strap (which is on the back of the seat – not on the base), to the appropriate top tether anchor in your vehicle. You do not need to uninstall the base when switching from rear-facing to forward-facing or vice versa. You only need to unlock the seat from its base, switch the orientation, and lock it in again. Just don’t forget the tether if you are using the seat forward-facing!
Sometimes I wish I was just an average parent, happily putting my kid in a backless booster straight out of a convertible seat and going about my business. But I’m not. I’m a Child Passenger Safety Technician Instructor and have been in the field for 10 years this spring. I like to analyze the decisions I make for my kids and make sure I’m making the safest decisions. Why? Why do I overanalyze these decisions? I’ve always prided myself on giving others the same advice I follow myself. So why am I so uncomfortable following this advice I’m giving myself?
A video about texting and driving has been making its rounds on the interwebs lately. The video, produced by AT&T, consists of interviews with people whose lives were impacted by texting and driving: the friends and family of people who were killed, a young man who was permanently and severely disabled, and another who killed a bicyclist.
If you haven’t seen it, it is definitely worth a watch, but have some Kleenex handy.
As the above video states, you’re 23 times more likely to be in an accident while texting versus when you’re actually paying attention. It’s dangerous and outright stupid.
The app, called Parker, gives drivers up-to-the-minute information about open parking spaces in Hollywood.
Street parking is in high demand in that area, with people sometimes driving around for 12 minutes looking for a parking space, according to research published in the Los Angeles Times. Thanks to the Parker app, people can more easily find open spaces, plus get information about time limits and whether the parking meters take credit cards.
Now, my family and I plan to do a lot of travel by car in the coming years, and I have downloaded several travel apps for my iPod Touch. I have apps to find campgrounds, apps that tell me what amenities are available at Interstate off-ramps, even an app to help me locate the World’s Largest Concrete Gnome (Ames, Iowa). So I’m not opposed to apps that make it easier to find or get to a destination.
To safely use these apps, we look up information before we leave, or I look up information while my husband is driving.
The Parker app, on the other hand, practically begs to be used while driving. There’s no point using it in advance given the constant turnover in parking spaces. Also, people in Southern California aren’t really big on having passengers in their cars. That’s why a few vehicles whiz by in the carpool lanes of the freeway while everyone else sits bumper-to-bumper. Yes, the tourists driving around Hollywood might have an extra set of eyes in the car, but most commuters do not.
Obviously people might choose to use any app while driving, especially one related to finding destinations. I don’t blame the companies that develop those apps; I blame people who choose to use them while driving.
In the case of Parker, though, I do blame the app’s makers and the City of Los Angeles for commissioning it. I blame them because, by its very nature, the app needs to be used in real-time. I blame them because their targeted demographic is notorious for driving solo. I blame them because they are a government agency that should be more concerned with public safety than turning a buck. The same people charged with making the city a safer place have just given people tacit permission to play on their iPhones while driving.
To the city’s credit, in a post on the city’s blog, Council President Eric Garcetti reminds people to pull over before using the app. But when people are jockeying for the few open spots they’re not likely to take time to pull over, even if the crowded LA streets allowed for it.
Los Angeles politicos can pretend that people won’t use Parker while driving, but if they really believe that they’re delusional.
Sure the app will likely provide the benefits the city touts. Drivers will be less frustrated! Businesses will flourish! Congestion will be eased! I guess they don’t care that people might die.
Personally, I’d rather spend 12 minutes hunting for a parking space than spend a lifetime regretting having accidentally killed someone because I was looking down to see if the parking spot around the corner takes Visa. I hope all Southern Californians will be so considerate, but we are, as a whole, a self-absorbed bunch.
The first time someone is killed or injured as a result of a driver using this app Los Angeles can likely expect a big lawsuit. They’ll need to sell a lot of $1.99 apps to pay for that settlement.