Baby Gate Tips

Baby Gates For Stairs

In the United States alone, more than a thousand people die each year due to stair related accidents. Most of these are the very old and the very young. The majority of parents have the desire to do whatever they can to minimize the risks their children are exposed to. When it comes to expandable baby safety gates there are so many different ones to choose from. Consider that baby gates for stairs, doorways and even fireplace safety gates average in size from widths of about 20 inches to 36 inches, however there are extra wide baby gates as well for larger doorways and stair openings. Baby gates have an average height of about 30 inches or taller if need be, and come in many different price ranges, a parent might struggle with which one to buy. This article is designed to shed some light on this issue and to help a parent make an informed choice. In this article, you will find which baby safety gate could be right for you, where to install the baby safety gate and how to install the baby gate.

Baby safety gates are designed to prevent accidents, such as falls down the stairs, but also to prevent access to “off-limit” areas. Because different gates serve different purposes, just how different child safety cabinet locks work better for different cabinets, determining which one to use on your staircase might be difficult. Pressure mounted baby gates are an example of a gate which is safe to use in other areas of the home, such as to block off a doorway or an opening between rooms, but they should never be used to prevent injuries on the stairs. If enough weight is applied to a pressure mounted safety gate, it can “pop out” from between the walls. Pressure mounted gates are normally cheaper than other gates and are generally safe to use in areas where the floor on either side of the gate are level with each other. For use on stairs, a person would want to purchase a gate that is hardware mounted. This means the gate is securely applied to the wall or banister with screws or some other piece of hardware. If a person does not want any lasting damage, “no hole” post mounts can be purchased also.

In high traffic areas, it is better to splurge on a more expensive, but convenient children’s safety gate such as a retractable baby gate, than to buy a gate that is less expensive but more of a hassle to use. Recently, baby gate manufacturers have been developing gate handles than are easier for adults to latch and unlatch. This is important because the more convenient a gate is to use, the more likely an adult will be to use it. A gate can only serve its purpose of protecting a child if it is used every time a child is around.

It is better to install a gate before a child becomes mobile. This allows everyone, including other children, to become accustomed to using the safety gate regularly. But then a person might wonder where he or she will need a gate. Some general “off-limit” areas are the top of the stairs, home offices, exercise areas, and even playrooms that might contain toys and objects unsuitable for infants and toddlers. After a person decides which areas in the home need to be partitioned off, it is wise to carefully examine the opening for which a safety gate is needed and to select the safest and most appropriate type of gate. The gate you choose should be selected by which one is the safest for each particular room or opening and not one based on how you want it to operate or look.

Last, a person needs to consider how to install the baby safety gate. Most gates will come with instructions on how to install the baby safety gate. They should be followed exactly the way they are written out for the utmost safety. Also, if the gate should malfunction and an accident occurs, the manufacturer may not be able to be held responsible if the gate was not installed correctly in the first place.

Of course all parents want their children to be safe, but before someone runs out and buys the most expensive safety equipment, stop and consider what it needs to accomplish. The amount spent will not keep kids safe. Only thoughtful planning and consideration will.

Ah, the age old question. I have been thinking about this ever since my little one started crawling back around 5 months old. To baby gate or not to baby gate?

My friends and family all have very strong opinions and very good advice when it comes to this question. There are pretty much two schools of thought on the subject…
1. Gates are great because they prevent falls and keep baby out of non-baby-proofed areas.
2. Gates are not necessary because you should be watching your children and teaching them where the boundaries are.

Now that I have an 11 month old who can pretty much run around the house like a toddler, I have found that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Yes, I am always around my daughter and do my best to watch her every second of the day, but when I am making her lunch and she is playing on the kitchen floor, I need to know that she is not going to tumble down the basement stairs. This is the only area we have chosen to “gate off” out of necessity. Daddy works downstairs and she wants more than anything to go down and see him.  She really does not care that she does not know how to step down stairs, she will just start going if we let her.

Then there is the staircase going upstairs.  I have turned away for a second during a game of “peek-a-boo” and have opened my eyes to find my little Monkey halfway up the stairs! We have not gated that staircase and hopefully we won’t have to, but I do end up chasing her up the stairs at least 20 times a day. I wonder if we should have put a gate at the bottom.  Some experts say you should have a gate at the third step from the bottom, so baby can learn by trial and error how to go up and down the steps.
I have some friends who have gated off almost every room of their houses, putting child locks on every single cabinet and drawer in the house. But what happens when those children are taken to another house? Will they listen when their parents say “no”?  Since we have made the decision not to use gates and child locks (for the most part) I am sure that it was the right thing to do. It has been very annoying to have to teach her over and over AND OVER again not to open the cabinets, but now she stops at the word, “no” and when we visit other houses that are not babyproofed, she listens to the boundaries as we set them.

So what do you think about baby gates?  Love ‘em or leave ‘em?

Related Posts:

• Babyproofing
• Baby’s First Christmas
• Reading with Baby
• Baby is Teething. Mommy is tired and cranky.
• NO!

If you want to do everything you can to protect your children, car seat safety should be a top priority. Many children die every year in motor vehicle crashes from not being in a proper safety seat. 

 There are four main types of child safety seats availble and it’s important to know at what age and weight your child should change to a different seat. 

Infants should ride in rear-facing seats until they are one years old. Depending on the car seat company you are using more recommend that a infant also stay in this style of seat until they are AT LEAST 20lbs.

Toddlers should ride in a front-facing seat with a full harness. If your child is smaller than you should consider keeping them in a rear-facing seat until they outgrow it (usually around 40-80lbs).

School-aged children should ride in booster seats. These seats are front facing and raise the child up so that the seatbelt can fit them safely.

Once your child reaches about 4’9” they are ready to use an adult seatbelt. Make sure the seatbelt fits them correctly across their chest and shoulders.

If you have any questions regarding which seat you should use for your child consult your child’s pediatrician.  

Thank you Pacopus for the photo.  

The President recently released his budget proposal for 2010.  It is a complex, difficult proposal to grasp, contemplating trillions of dollars in spending and trillion-dollar deficits extending, unbroken, into the foreseeable future.

One of the problems for American taxpayers is that the federal government is so large, so sprawling, and so unwieldy that it is virtually impossible to be an informed citizen.  There are too many agencies performing too many functions and producing too much information.  The recent Toyota safety problems, however, have brought NHTSA — the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration — into focus for me.  I therefore thought that NHTSA might be a good candidate for a closer look at the federal budget, on an individual agency level.

NHTSA is a federal agency that focuses on motor vehicle safety.  Its NHTSA Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Overview, in PDF form, is available here.  The Budget Overview indicates that the total proposed budget would be $867 million, of which $237 million would go to Operations and Research, $4 million would go for the National Driver Register, and the lion’s share — $626 million — would go to National Traffic Safety Grants.  In short, more than 70 percent of NHTSA’s budget doesn’t go to figuring out problems like those that have led to the Toyota recalls.  Instead, it serves as a fund transfer mechanism, where money comes in from the federal taxpayers and then is doled out to states and municipalities through grants.

For purposes of this posting I am going to assume that every cent allocated for Operations and Research and the National Driver Register is used for important federal government purposes.  (This is undoubtedly a generous assumption, because $96 million of the funds budgeted for Operations and Research and the National Driver Register are identified, in Exhibit II-2 of the Budget Overview, as being for “administrative expenses.”)  What about the grants, though?

It turns out that there are eight different grant programs, as well as administrative expenses for these programs, which in 2010 is budgeted for $25 million.  To get more information about the grant programs, you need to go to the NHTSA Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Estimates, which also are available in PDF form here.  According to page 48 of the document, some of the programs are designed to “encourage States to increase seat belt usage” and “child safety seat and child restraint programs.”  These programs include the Seat Belt Performance Grant Program, which is budgeted for $124.5 million, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grants, which is budgeted for $25 million, and the Child Safety and Booster Seat Grants, which is budgeted for $7 million.  In all, more than $150 million in grants go for seat belt-type programs.

Another $139 million is budgeted for Alcohol Incentive Formula Grants, which are designed, according to page 48 of the PDF’d document, to “to encourage States to adopt incentive grants to states for the implementation of effective programs to reduce impaired driving and its tragic consequences.”  The largest grant program, the Section 402 Formula Grants budgeted at $235 million, is intended, also according to page 48, to “support State highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes and resulting deaths, injuries, and property damage,” and under that program “ State may use these grant funds only for highway safety purposes; at least 40 percent of these funds are to be expended by political subdivisions (i.e. communities) within the State.”

When you get to the listing of “Anticipated FY 2009 Accomplishments” for the NHTSA grant programs, at pages 51 and 52 of the PDF’d document, you see things like placing a “national media buy” for the “Click It or Ticket” seat belt program and the “Drunk Driving.  Over The Limit.  Under Arrest” program and the participation of all 50 States in those programs.

These NHTSA grant programs help to explain why cutting the federal budget seems to be so difficult for Members of Congress.  One could legitimately conclude that the federal government doesn’t really need to encourage States to have safer roads; one would think the States themselves could and would conclude that is an important goal.  One also could conclude that people really don’t need to be reminded to wear seat belts or that drunk driving is illegal and will be punished.  If individual States or local governments are having significant problems with drunk driving, for example, they can develop and fund their own programs, targeted specifically at the problem areas.

These NHTSA grant programs cost more than half a billion dollars, including the $25 million in administrative costs at the federal government end.  (There also will be costs, of course, at the state and local government end, as those entities hire government workers to design programs that comply with federal regulations, make grant applications, and then themselves administer whatever funds are received from the federal government.)  Yet if Members of Congress voted to eliminate these programs, in order to realize some significant savings, during their next campaign they risk being on the receiving end of attack ads that use those votes to argue that they are in favor of drunk driving, or against seat belt use or children using child restraint seats.  The malign images of those potential ads probably flash through their minds when the budget is discussed, and they take the path of least resistance and vote against any cuts in the grant programs.  The end result is that nothing gets done, federal spending never decreases, and our budget deficit and national debt holes get deeper.

No one supports drunk driving, unsafe roads, or reckless child-rearing activities.  But if we are going to get our federal budget under control, hard choices have to be made.  I think a good start would be to get the federal government out of the grant-making and TV ad-buying game and let States and local governments make their own decisions about how best to enforce existing laws on traffic safety, seat belt use, and punishing drunk driving.  $626 million in savings may not seem like a lot of money — at least, not to a Member of Congress faced with trillions in federal spending — but it is a start, and every little bit of savings is needed if we are going to turn around our deeply troubling budget predicament.