Extended rear facing??

[SKL]

I personally don't worry about my driving, it is the idiots in the semis, or the teenagers not paying attention to what they are doing and other drivers talking on the phone or intoxicated. (1) You can not control everybody else's action, the only thing a parent can do is make sure they are doing everything in their power to keep their child safe.; to me that is having my child RF as long as possible. It has been proven RF is safer than FF in head on collisions.

 

Even with best practice, not all injuries can be prevented. Some crashes are unsurvivable. &nbsp Still, much of best practice is based on statistics, and how to have the best chance to reduce injuries. Best practice may also be based on crash forces and physics. Both are very important regarding the use of rear facing seats.

A few factors govern the physics of crashes as they relate to children in carseats. Obviously, the faster the vehicles are going, the more energy will be in the crash. Similarly, heavier vehicles will also have more energy. Perhaps most important is the length of time passengers have to "ride-down" a crash. The longer the "ride-down," the more time your skeleton and organs have to absorb the crash energy. Longer time means less power is transferred to your body, and less chance of injury.

 

• Statistics. According to Crashtest.Com, frontal and frontal offset crashes combine for about 72% of severe crashes (2). Side impacts are about 24%. Rear and rear offset crashes only account for about 4%. The NHTSA FARS database shows similar numbers. The odds of being in a frontal crash with a fatality or very serious injury are many times greater than being in a severe rear-end crash. Rear-enders are more common at lower speeds, though most injuries in these crashes are not as severe - typically, whiplash injuries to adults, especially passengers lacking proper head restraint.
  
• ...
  
• Similarly, for the uncommon rear-end crash (3), a front-facing carseat may be safer than a rear-facing model. Still, rear-end crashes are much less common and much less severe than frontal crashes, and it is for that reason we choose to maximize the protection for a frontal crash instead. In addition, rear-facing carseats can also provide an added degree of safety in side-impacts. Rear-facing seats will usually protect the head from being thrown outside the shell of the carseat much better than a front-facing carseat in a frontal offset or side impact. Even a minor rear-end crash can be serious for front-facing adults without proper head restraints, but this is usually not an issue for children in properly fitted carseats and boosters.

 

Here's why I find your comments misleading / unhelpful (see numbered bolds above)

 

(1) The crash tests used to scare people are not cases of other idiots on the road being stupid. Even other idiots on the road are extremely unlikely to smash head-on into a responsible driver at a high speed.

 

(2) It is my understanding that "frontal" crash include cases where someone else's front end hits your rear end. (I'm calling that a rear-ender for simplicity's sake.) The "frontal" is about what part of the crasher car hits you, not what part of the crashee car gets hit.

 

(3) Be real. There is NO WAY that rear-enders, plus backing into stuff, make up only 4% of crashes. The vast majority of actual accidents I've seen and been invoved in have been rear-enders (usually involving my rear and somebody else's front).

 

You can be hit darn hard by a person behind you who is texting, sliding on the ice, or has failed brakes. Take my word for it. I've had a couple of cars totaled that way, and I have a good driving record.

 

Rear-enders are much more common than head-on crashes, and they are pretty much impossible for the crashee to avoid. I put my money on the relative risk being lower (or, basically the same) if my preschooler or older is FF rather than RF.

 

I am not militantly against RF, but I am against judging or fear-mongering based on a decision to FF earlier than the recommended time.

Edited September 6, 2012 by SKL

[Mommy_of_4]

Here's why I find your comments misleading / unhelpful (see numbered bolds above)

 

(1) The crash tests used to scare people are not cases of other idiots on the road being stupid. Even other idiots on the road are extremely unlikely to smash head-on into a responsible driver at a high speed.

 

(2) It is my understanding that "frontal" crash include cases where someone else's front end hits your rear end. (I'm calling that a rear-ender for simplicity's sake.) The "frontal" is about what part of the crasher car hits you, not what part of the crasshee car gets hit.

 

Be real. There is NO WAY that rear-enders, plus backing into stuff, make up only 4% of crashes. The vast majority of actual accidents I've seen and been invoved in have been rear-enders (usually involving my rear and somebody else's front).

 

You can be hit darn hard by a person behind you who is texting, sliding on the ice, or has failed brakes. Take my word for it. I've had a couple of cars totaled that way, and I have a good driving record.

 

Rear-enders are much more common than head-on crashes, and they are pretty much impossible for the crashee to avoid. I put my money on the relative risk being lower (or, basically the same) if my preschooler or older is FF rather than RF.

 

I am not militantly against RF, but I am against judging or fear-mongering based on a decision to FF earlier than the recommended time.

 

I am not judging or fear mongering! The FACT is RF is safer than FF for a child under 2! As long as the child is over 2 I am no problems with other people FF their children. Most SEVERE crashes are FRONTAL, that is a fact. This is straight for the American Academy of Pediatrics. All the research has been done. You can take it or leave it. I want to keep my children as safe as possible in the car, so they will be RF until they outgrow their seats and in a 5pt harness until they outgrow it. I can NOT control the way other people drive, I can only control my driving. I see people all the time texting on their phone or not paying attention to what they are doing as they pass me on the highway.

 

"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body,” Dr. Durbin said. New research has found children are safer in rear-facing car seats. A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention showed that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or be severely injured in a crash if they are riding rear-facing.One-year-olds are five times less likely to be injured in a crash if they are in a rear-facing car seat than a forward-facing seat, according to a 2007 analysis of five years of U.S. crash data. Toddlers have relatively large heads and small necks. In a front-facing car seat, the force of a crash can jerk the child's head causing spinal cord injuries. Car seats have recommended weights printed on them. If a 1-year-old outweighs the recommendation of an infant seat, parents should switch to a different rear-facing car seat that accommodates the heavier weight until they turn."

 

How hard is to just not turn your child FF until age 2?

 

http://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html

Edited September 6, 2012 by Lynn213220

[Mommy_of_4]

Here is data:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/6/398.abstract

" A review of US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data on crashes between 1998 and 2003 involving 870 children concluded that rear-facing seats were better at protecting kids up to 23 months across all types of accidents."

source: MSN.COM 6/11/2009

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12361509?dopt=Abstract

[SKL]

I am not judging or fear mongering! The FACT is RF is safer than FF for a child under 2! As long as the child is over 2 I am no problems with other people FF their children. Most SEVERE crashes are FRONTAL (1), that is a fact. This is straight for the American Academy of Pediatrics. All the research has been done. You can take it or leave it.

 

"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body,†Dr. Durbin said. New research has found children are safer in rear-facing car seats. A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention showed that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or be severely injured in a crash if they are riding rear-facing.One-year-olds are five times less likely to be injured in a crash if they are in a rear-facing car seat than a forward-facing seat, according to a 2007 analysis of five years of U.S. crash data. Toddlers have relatively large heads and small necks. In a front-facing car seat, the force of a crash can jerk the child's head causing spinal cord injuries. Car seats have recommended weights printed on them. If a 1-year-old outweighs the recommendation of an infant seat, parents should switch to a different rear-facing car seat that accommodates the heavier weight until they turn."

 

First, as you can see by this discussion, people are thinking that RF is significantly safer for kids over age 2. Also, combining all kids under 2 is not helpful when there is so much difference between, say, a 9mo vs. a 21mo. That said, I have no problem RF a 23mo. My kids were RF up to age 2.5. I still don't think it's that much better than FF at that age.

 

Second, your comment about frontal crashes means nothing until you define frontal. Frontal crashes are crashes where the person hitting the other person/thing has the front of HIS car involved. That means when you are rear-ended that is a "frontal" crash. But as far as your kid is concerned, RF is not safer in that very common situation.

 

Third, car seats are made so the kid is at the same angle whether RF or FF. If a front-end crash hurts a RF kid, being rear-ended can hurt a FF kid, and this is a more common occurrance.

 

Finally, to your comment "how hard is it to RF to age 2," it was fairly easy for me. Apparently it's hard for some parents, for a variety of reasons, mainly the discomfort of their kids and the crowdedness of their cars. When people make a decision, they deserve to have clear facts so they can weigh the pros and cons for themselves. Telling them that their kid is 18x more likely to be involved in a head-on crash than to be rear-ended is just irresponsible. Not bothering to mention that there is risk for a RF child who is rear-ended is not responsible.

[Dory]

How hard is to just not turn your child FF until age 2?

 

http://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html

 

 

If you have to ask this, I'm guessing you don't have kids that struggle with being car sick.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Lynn, she was just a big baby. 9 lbs 12 oz at birth, 26 pounds by 5mo, 32 lbs at a year, 47 at 2yrs. Then she grew into her weight.

[Mommy_of_4]

First, as you can see by this discussion, people are thinking that RF is significantly safer for kids over age 2. Also, combining all kids under 2 is not helpful when there is so much difference between, say, a 9mo vs. a 21mo. That said, I have no problem RF a 23mo. My kids were RF up to age 2.5. I still don't think it's that much better than FF at that age.

 

Second, your comment about frontal crashes means nothing until you define frontal. Frontal crashes are crashes where the person hitting the other person/thing has the front of HIS car involved. That means when you are rear-ended that is a "frontal" crash. But as far as your kid is concerned, RF is not safer in that very common situation.

 

Third, car seats are made so the kid is at the same angle whether RF or FF. If a front-end crash hurts a RF kid, being rear-ended can hurt a FF kid, and this is a more common occurrance.

 

Finally, to your comment "how hard is it to RF to age 2," it was fairly easy for me. Apparently it's hard for some parents, for a variety of reasons, mainly the discomfort of their kids and the crowdedness of their cars. When people make a decision, they deserve to have clear facts so they can weigh the pros and cons for themselves. Telling them that their kid is 18x more likely to be involved in a head-on crash than to be rear-ended is just irresponsible. Not bothering to mention that there is risk for a RF child who is rear-ended is not responsible.

 

The facts are right there. RF is SAFER than FF. I didn't make the stats up. They are right here. http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html I don't how in the hell they came up the stats! Frontal crash: An accident in which the front end of a vehicle is damaged....Rear end crashes can happen at other times than just someone running into a back of someones car. People back into things ALL the time. It is a fact rear end crashes happen at way lower speeds then side impact or front on collisions. I am personally more concerned about high speed collisions, since I make a 2 1/2 hr drive one way every weekend and most if it is highway. And I know crowdeness of cars. I have 3 kids in a cobalt. It is a pain to put baby in middle RF but it is the safest option so I deal with it.

 

If you have to ask this, I'm guessing you don't have kids that struggle with being car sick.

 

For most kids that is not a problem. And if your child is getting car sick then by all means turn them.

[Mommy_of_4]

Lynn, she was just a big baby. 9 lbs 12 oz at birth, 26 pounds by 5mo, 32 lbs at a year, 47 at 2yrs. Then she grew into her weight.

 

Wow! Thats a big girl!

[ByGrace3]

I didn't know about extended rear facing with my first 2. I switched them both forward at a year, 20lbs. #3 is still rear facing at 30 months. I have contemplated switching her only because she kicks on the seat and can move the car seat so I feel it might not be as Safely installed as it should be... But the statistics for rear facing are convincing enought to me that I would not consider turning before 2 unless extreme circumstances.

[raceNzanesmom]

Mine stay rear facing as long as possible, over age 3 with the seats now available. It's at least 500% safer, protects the fragile neck, head and spine- the areas most likely to sustain fatal or life altering injury in a crash.

 

I've had around 18-20 kids in my care over the past 10 years that have stayed RF that long-or longer- and not one has ever complained. The 4 1/2 y/o I care for now was just turned in May when he exceeded the weight limit on his Radian and he still complains about being FF because he doesn't have anywhere to put his feet and his head falls forward when he sleeps. The 3 1/2 y/o still happily RF.

[Annie Laurie]

However, I didn't see anyone else mention their 11 yr old still in a 5 pt. My kids must be amazingly small. Well, on that note so I'm I. I technically fit into my ds's Regent.

 

My 8 yr old is in a regent, and he's tiny so I'm sure he'll be able to fit in it at 11. The seat will be expired before then though.

[raceNzanesmom]

Re: the post above about rear end collisions. Rear end collisions have completely different crash dynamics because both vehicles are traveling the same direction, in the vast amount of rear end crashes they are at much slower speeds, with one or both vehicles decelerating at impact. Rear end collisions also have, by FAR, the least amount of serious or fatal injuries each year. Frontal and side impact crashes cause the most deaths and serious injuries. Children in those crashes are MUCH safer when rear facing. We'd ALL be safer RF, it just isn't possible.

 

To SKL, take a class or do some serious research on crash dynamics. You have a lot of misinformation.

[AdventureMoms]

Re: the post above about rear end collisions. Rear end collisions have completely different crash dynamics because both vehicles are traveling the same direction, in the vast amount of rear end crashes they are at much slower speeds, with one or both vehicles decelerating at impact. Rear end collisions also have, by FAR, the least amount of serious or fatal injuries each year. Frontal and side impact crashes cause the most deaths and serious injuries. Children in those crashes are MUCH safer when rear facing. We'd ALL be safer RF, it just isn't possible.

 

To SKL, take a class or do some serious research on crash dynamics. You have a lot of misinformation.

:iagree: Yes many accidents are rear-end collisions. But most SERIOUS accidents are frontal, frontal offset, or side-impact. Those tend to be MUCH more severe because of both vehicles heading in opposite directions issue.

 

Totaling a vehicle has to do with the cost to repair it and the value of the car, not necessarily the severity of the crash. I've seen cars totaled because of a bent rear fender and had a car totaled because of a damaged door. Both accidents were of the sort that even an unsecured child would not have been hurt. I'm much more concerned with serious accidents.

[Dinsfamily]

My 11 yr old still fits his harness seat. :001_smile: Yes, he sits in it.

 

I see I'm not the only one to have kids RF to age 4. :) However, I didn't see anyone else mention their 11 yr old still in a 5 pt. My kids must be amazingly small. Well, on that note so I'm I. I technically fit into my ds's Regent.

 

I wait until they outgrow the Nautilus. Ds8 is a tall kid (75%ile) and just grew out of it as I mentioned before, but I can see ds6 lasting awhile. He...um...isn't tall :D. He does have a longer torso, though. Ds4 is taller than his oldest brother at that age (FWIW), but ds1 seems to be following in ds6's footsteps height wise. Time will tell. None of my dc are in danger of exceeding the weight since the Nautilus harnesses until 65lbs and my oldest is only 48lbs.

[PeacefulChaos]

With the boys, extended rear facing wasn't on the radar yet. Heck, Link's infant/carrier seat was only a 3pt harness. :tongue_smilie: The standard then was 1 and 20 and I may have actually turned them around shortly before their actual first birthday. :)

Now that we know more, etc, it's different. I'm kind of a car seat geek, but I don't have the boys in 5pt or anything. They both sit in high back boosters, even though according to our law link doesn't have to be in one - he doesn't fit in the seatbelt well without it, not to mention it seems weird for my SMALLER (albeit older) kid to be out of a seat when the bigger one is in one. ;). So they both are - they have the same one.

We turned pink around at 18m. I wasn't 100% comfortable with that, but she was arching and craning a ridiculous amount to see the DVD player. :lol: DH felt bad for her and said, hey, at least she is 20 lbs now (she didn't hit 20 til around 17-18m).

 

Eta: I don't think it's something to get upset about if someone else does it differently. Like a pp said, I think that, seeing little tiny kids with NO car seats, there are bigger fish to fry than to worry about whether people turn their kid around at 12 months or 4 years. :)

Edited September 6, 2012 by PeacefulChaos

[SKL]

To SKL, take a class or do some serious research on crash dynamics. You have a lot of misinformation.

 

This is the whole problem here. I seem to be the only person who understands that when someone rear-ends you, that is a FRONTAL crash. It's part of the 72% of crashes that are listed in the most-common "frontal" category. The 4% listed in the rear category are when YOU back up into something.

 

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

 

You are much more likely to be rear-ended than to have someone hit you head-on. The statistics don't negate this; the statistics are being misunderstood.

 

Yes, it's true that if you are rear-ended (and also if you rear-end someone else), both cars are usually traveling in the same direction so it's generally not as bad as a head-on collision. But head-on collisions hardly ever happen, while being rear-ended happens all the time.

 

The risk is like this. Most of us will never be in a head-on collision. But most of us who drive regularly will be rear-ended multiple times. So logically, the risk of a head-on collision should get less weight in the analysis than the risk of a rear-ender.

 

Another thing. Nowadays they design cars so if you are in a head-on collision or you drive into a cement wall, your front end will buckle under you in order to absorb most of the shock. This is not true of being rear-ended.

[Lab1]

I rear face as long as I can. My barely turned 2 yr old is happily rear facing. My 3 yr old was over 35 lbs before he turned 2 and needed to be turned around as it was the seats limit. My 2 yr old will be rear facing as long as I can manage it, but hehit a major growth spurt and gained a lot. I'm hopeful to rear face him for another yr. He is average size vs. peanut size he was as a baby.

[AdventureMoms]

This is the whole problem here. I seem to be the only person who understands that when someone rear-ends you, that is a FRONTAL crash. It's part of the 72% of crashes that are listed in the most-common "frontal" category. The 4% listed in the rear category are when YOU back up into something.

 

Do you have some kind of link or source for this? I've never heard it classified that way.

[raceNzanesmom]

This is the whole problem here. I seem to be the only person who understands that when someone rear-ends you, that is a FRONTAL crash. It's part of the 72% of crashes that are listed in the most-common "frontal" category. The 4% listed in the rear category are when YOU back up into something.

 

Why is this so hard to understand and accept?

 

You are much more likely to be rear-ended than to have someone hit you head-on. The statistics don't negate this; the statistics are being misunderstood.

 

Yes, it's true that if you are rear-ended (and also if you rear-end someone else), both cars are usually traveling in the same direction so it's generally not as bad as a head-on collision. But head-on collisions hardly ever happen, while being rear-ended happens all the time.

 

The risk is like this. Most of us will never be in a head-on collision. But most of us who drive regularly will be rear-ended multiple times. So logically, the risk of a head-on collision should get less weight in the analysis than the risk of a rear-ender.

 

Another thing. Nowadays they design cars so if you are in a head-on collision or you drive into a cement wall, your front end will buckle under you in order to absorb most of the shock. This is not true of being rear-ended.

 

That's why you need to educate yourself with real crash dynamics. I've been a tech for 11 years, being rear ended, even when RF, is NOT the same as a frontal crash.

 

Again, incorrect. Crumple zones are built in the rear too.

 

Like it or not, kids ARE safer RF and should be kept RF as long as possible. I don't even need crash testing to prove that. Just looking at real world crashes show us the increased safety of RF.

 

Take the 4 day class or, at least, keep your misinformation to yourself.

[welovetoread]

Yes, we choose to rear face as long as we can. There is enough credible research, in my opinion, that little person's spines are just not strong enough to deal with impact in the case of an accident.

So, I won't be turning either of my boys (3 next week and just turned 1) anytime soon

[SKL]

Do you have some kind of link or source for this? I've never heard it classified that way.

 

Here's an official data source that shows being rear-ended is the most common type of collision (32% vs only 2.5% for head-on collisions). While it is true that head-on impact with another vehicle is more likely to be fatal (2848 vs 1694 deaths), there are still many deaths from being rear-ended, and the number of injuries reported is far higher than for head-on collisions (476,000 vs. 66,000). Furthermore, it may be worth noting that if the vast majority of car passengers didn't sit front-facing with head/neck support behind, there might be more injuries and deaths from being rear-ended.

 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811659.pdf (See page 68.)

 

While I can't quickly find the source where I read that the oft-cited 72% "frontal crashes" (and not the 4% rear impact crashes) include the crashes when people are rear-ended, the above statistics prove my point in that regard.

 

A RF child who is rear-ended may not be exactly as vulnerable as a FF child who is hit head-on, but the risk is definitely increased.

 

I totally agree that babies' bodies are different etc., but it is misleading to imply that there is a vast difference in safety for RF for all ages based on the oft-cited 72% "frontal impact" stat.

Edited September 7, 2012 by SKL

[ElizaG]

Our first four children stayed rear-facing until somewhere between 3 and almost 5. They're all using boosters now, as they're able to sit properly in them, and we aren't convinced that forward-facing harnessed seats are safer. (This was a conscious decision on our part, after looking carefully at the arguments for both options, though I respect that others might have come to different conclusions. :))

 

For about seven months, we had three out of five children rear-facing. The baby was in the middle row of the van in an infant seat, along with the 6 and 8 year olds in boosters. The two preschoolers were in the third row in their convertible seats, which were like little La-Z-Boys. They whiled away their time looking out the back window and chatting to each other. I have no idea what they were talking about... probably a good measure of nonsense... :) but they were happy as clams. I did have to lean in to the back hatch to buckle them, which was kind of undignified, but more convenient than reaching in from the front to buckle a forward-facing child.

 

All of ours have been happy to go in the car, at least once they were past the early newborn stage. I guess we got lucky! Or maybe it's just that the Lord knows the limits of my patience and driving ability, and is being merciful. :auto:

[Shannanlee]

I am still rear-facing my almost 2 yr old. Have not decided when I will switch maybe when she get sick of it. Or when she out weighs the requirement for rear-facing.

[kitten18]

Here's an official data source that shows being rear-ended is the most common type of collision (32% vs only 2.5% for head-on collisions). While it is true that head-on impact with another vehicle is more likely to be fatal (2848 vs 1694 deaths), there are still many deaths from being rear-ended, and the number of injuries reported is far higher than for head-on collisions (476,000 vs. 66,000). Furthermore, it may be worth noting that if the vast majority of car passengers didn't sit front-facing with head/neck support behind, there might be more injuries and deaths from being rear-ended.

 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811659.pdf (See page 68.)

 

While I can't quickly find the source where I read that the oft-cited 72% "frontal crashes" (and not the 4% rear impact crashes) include the crashes when people are rear-ended, the above statistics prove my point in that regard.

 

A RF child who is rear-ended may not be exactly as vulnerable as a FF child who is hit head-on, but the risk is definitely increased.

 

I totally agree that babies' bodies are different etc., but it is misleading to imply that there is a vast difference in safety for RF for all ages based on the oft-cited 72% "frontal impact" stat.

:confused: You are only talking about Rear end vs. Head On. That does not take into account Angle 24.6%, and Sideswipe 8.5%. And those are ONLY, ONLY the crashes that involve another moving vehicle.

 

That doesn't take into account all the collisions with fixed objects: poles, posts, ditches, culverts, trees, guard rail, embankment, bridge, etc.

PLUS collisions with objects not fixed: parked cars, pedestrians, animals, cyclists, trains, etc.

These account for 15,713,......52.1% of fatalities.

I'm guessing that almost all of these collisions involve frontal impact. You don't usually hear of people backing into a tree at 50mph.

[SKL]

:confused: You are only talking about Rear end vs. Head On. That does not take into account Angle 24.6%, and Sideswipe 8.5%. And those are ONLY, ONLY the crashes that involve another moving vehicle.

 

That doesn't take into account all the collisions with fixed objects: poles, posts, ditches, culverts, trees, guard rail, embankment, bridge, etc.

PLUS collisions with objects not fixed: parked cars, pedestrians, animals, cyclists, trains, etc.

These account for 15,713,......52.1% of fatalities.

I'm guessing that almost all of these collisions involve frontal impact. You don't usually hear of people backing into a tree at 50mph.

 

If you're following the discussion, people are saying they are worried about other cars hitting their car and killing their passenger children. The vast majority of the time, an individual has control over the risk of an accident that involves only the car they are driving. We address the risk of hitting a tree, animal, or pedestrian (with fatal results) by not driving too fast for conditions or while impaired etc.

 

You're right, I'm focused on rear vs. head-on, because I am trying to establish that being rear-ended is neither rare nor un-risky compared to being hit head-on, contrary to what people keep arguing.

[Mommy_of_4]

If you're following the discussion, people are saying they are worried about other cars hitting their car and killing their passenger children. The vast majority of the time, an individual has control over the risk of an accident that involves only the car they are driving. We address the risk of hitting a tree, animal, or pedestrian (with fatal results) by not driving too fast for conditions or while impaired etc.

 

You're right, I'm focused on rear vs. head-on, because I am trying to establish that being rear-ended is neither rare nor un-risky compared to being hit head-on, contrary to what people keep arguing.

 

You are missing the point that MOST rear end collisions are LOW speeds.

Approximately 75% of all rear end collisions are less than 10 mph. http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission.com/2011/04/how-receiver-hitches-affect-rear-end.html

 

Reader's Digest asked statisticians at the National Safety Council to analyze the nation's 41,611 traffic deaths in 1999 (the latest available data). They were asked to determine common ways that "good" drivers -- any of those found not at fault in an accident -- were killed. Here are the sobering facts.

- Head-ons killed 42 percent of the good drivers in our survey.

- Surprisingly, our study shows that only six percent of head-on collisions were caused by drivers passing at inopportune times. Twenty percent occurred on curves where often a driver going too fast veered into the opposite lane. But the great majority, 63 percent, happened when drivers were steering straight. The crashes were likely caused by drivers who were distracted by other things (kids, changing a CD, talking on a cell phone), or who fell asleep, or nearly so, and drifted into oncoming traffic.

We found that more than half of these head-ons occurred in daylight and more than 80 percent of them in dry weather. "That tracks with our experience," says Stephens. "More fatal accidents of every type seem to occur in nice weather when drivers may relax their guard; in bad weather, the majority of drivers tend to be more cautious, more attentive."

- When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety monitored a busy intersection in Arlington County, Virginia, for several months, they found a driver running the light every 12 minutes on average. It was as high as once every five minutes during peak rush hours. "That's more than 100 chances a day for an unsuspecting motorist to become a crash victim,"

-In a six-year study, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that deadly crashes at red lights increased at more than three times the rate of all other types of fatal auto accidents. ( side impact collisions - RF is safer in side impact than FF.)

- a variety of other "failure to yield" collisions -- beyond traffic signs and stop lights -- make up smaller percentages of driver deaths, but taken together, they can be serious killers. And they occur where there are no stop signs or traffic lights, at unmarked side roads, in driveways, and at entries to shopping-center parking lots. These kinds of failure-to-yield accidents took the lives of 11 percent of our good drivers who had the right of way.

http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/how-good-drivers-get-killed.html

 

 

I am personally not going to worry about rear end collisions(when you back into something or you rear end some one or someone rear ends you...that is how EVERY agency classifies rear end crashes!) when 75% of them are 10mph or less. I am going to be more worried about head on crashes. Again I can only control MY driving and not everybody else's. I can not control the people distracted by things or people falling asleep and going into oncoming traffic. I can NOT control that. All of the research has been done looking at ALL of the stats.

- The newest research has shown that kids in rear facing seats are more than five times safer than those riding in forward facing seats. Statistics from recent studies have shown that children under the age of 2 who ride in rear facing seats are 75% less likely to die or suffer major injury during a collision.

-In Sweden children ride in rear facing seats until age 4, and this has been found to be 90% safer, however car seats in Sweden are manufactured differently than in the US to allow for this.

-The AAP says that since motor vehicle accidents are the leading cause of death in children that all parents should be encouraged to keep their children in rear facing seats up until age 2 or until they exceed the size limit of the car seat.

 

http://www.earlyinterventionsupport.com/parentingtips/safety/rearfacingcarseats.aspx

[SKL]

You are missing the point that MOST rear end collisions are LOW speeds.

Approximately 75% of all rear end collisions are less than 10 mph. http://alerts.nationalsafetycommission.com/2011/04/how-receiver-hitches-affect-rear-end.html

 

 

Interesting, look at the other things in your linked list that don't seem quite consistent or helpful to your argument:

 

Here are some interesting rear end collision facts:

• Approximately 75% of all rear end collisions are less than 10 mph.
  
• 56% of all rear end crashes are straight on.
  
• ...
  
• 48% of the people that hit you in the rear – are not slowing down.
  
• ...
  
• Low speed rear end collisions (less than 10 mph) accentuate the whiplash more than high speed ones.
  
• 80% of all rear end collisions are caused by driver inattention.
  
• The acceleration of the occupant when hit from the rear is 2.5 times or more then that of the bullet vehicle.
  
• 94% of all rear end collisions occur on straight roads.
  
• Women are twice as likely to end up with a whiplash injury as a man.
  
• 32.1% of all fleet injuries are caused by the rear end collision.
  

(The ones I left out are about the hitch issue that the linked article discussed, and could be confusing to people who didn't read the article.)

 

The stats I linked to yesterday showed that there are far more rear-ender crashes than head-on crashes involving death and injury combined. Like 5-6x as many if I remember correctly. (You don't get injured by someone hitting you at 10mph, -- or do you?) Now you're saying that risk is too minimal to consider. Yet the fractional risk of having a head-on crash is too huge to ignore. Not logical. Nor am I saying the risk of head-on crashes should be ignored. Both kinds should be analyzed and weighed. One doesn't trump the other completely just because the total number of deaths is higher. By that logic, kids should only be allowed to travel via mass transit because the death rate is so much higher in cars.

 

But I'm obviously beating a dead horse. I'm not going to return to this thread because I think some people are just too married to their "truth" to hear the other side.

[sleepymommy]

I kept ds8 rear facing until he was five, but he was TINY and still had not reached the weight limit.

 

I kept ds5 turned around until he was four.

[Mommy_of_4]

Interesting, look at the other things in your linked list that don't seem quite consistent or helpful to your argument:

 

Here are some interesting rear end collision facts:

 

• Approximately 75% of all rear end collisions are less than 10 mph.

• 56% of all rear end crashes are straight on.

• ...

• 48% of the people that hit you in the rear – are not slowing down.

• ...

• Low speed rear end collisions (less than 10 mph) accentuate the whiplash more than high speed ones.

• 80% of all rear end collisions are caused by driver inattention.

• The acceleration of the occupant when hit from the rear is 2.5 times or more then that of the bullet vehicle.

• 94% of all rear end collisions occur on straight roads.

• Women are twice as likely to end up with a whiplash injury as a man.

• 32.1% of all fleet injuries are caused by the rear end collision.

(The ones I left out are about the hitch issue that the linked article discussed, and could be confusing to people who didn't read the article.)

 

The stats I linked to yesterday showed that there are far more rear-ender crashes than head-on crashes involving death and injury combined. Like 5-6x as many if I remember correctly. (You don't get injured by someone hitting you at 10mph, -- or do you?) Now you're saying that risk is too minimal to consider. Yet the fractional risk of having a head-on crash is too huge to ignore. Not logical. Nor am I saying the risk of head-on crashes should be ignored. Both kinds should be analyzed and weighed. One doesn't trump the other completely just because the total number of deaths is higher. By that logic, kids should only be allowed to travel via mass transit because the death rate is so much higher in cars.

 

But I'm obviously beating a dead horse. I'm not going to return to this thread because I

think some people are just too married to their "truth" to hear the other side.

 

The "truth "is many people who have studied crashes and the benefits of rf vs ff have stated children are safer rf. You apparently think you know bettter than American Academy of Pediatrics, who recommend rf to the limits if the seat. You can manipulate the data any way you choose but the fact is rf is safer for anyone of any age. It has been proven by many studies. The Swedes rf till 4 and have less than 10 children die from

crashes a yr. By your logic we shouldn't even wear seat belts since the risk of a crash is so little.

[plansrme]

You apparently think you know bettter than American Academy of Pediatrics, who recommend rf to the limits if the seat. You can manipulate the data any way you choose but the fact is rf is safer for anyone of any age. It has been proven by many studies. The Swedes rf till 4 and have less than 10 children die from

crashes a yr. By your logic we shouldn't even wear seat belts since the risk of a crash is so little.

 

I am not going to wade into the merits of crash statistics, and who pays for those studies, and who has an agenda (which is nearly everyone), but in fact there are plenty of people on this board and elsewhere who do believe that they know better than the AAP. Ever open one of the vaccination threads? Or one on circumcision? How about the threads on the AAP's recommendations for questions pediatricians ask about guns in the home? If so, you would know that not taking the AAP's recommendations as gospel isn't a teribly radical concept. Like most such organizations, the AAP is a political organization as well as a medical one.

 

The level of self-righteousness displayed in these discussions is always shocking to me, and I am happy that my children are all old enough to sit, facing forward, in a regular seat, even in Sweden.

 

Terri

[kitten18]

But I'm obviously beating a dead horse. I'm not going to return to this thread because I think some people are just too married to their "truth" to hear the other side.

Well, it's interesting that you thing others are so married to "their" truth.