Rear facing child seats are 5 times safer....
Discussion
mollytherocker said:
kambites said:
mollytherocker said:
Ah, but each car dissapates 70 mph. Its no different.
I think you need to go back to your GCSE physics. 
If you rear-end someone in an identical weight car at 70mph, each car's instantaneous speed delta will only be 35mph.
So, does this mean that the argument for rear facing is relevant to head on collisions only?
I thought that this early reply was a good summary:
Ian Geary said:
I recall a similar thread a year or so ago.
The jist of it was: there is evidence that support this view in a front on collision, because the whip lash effect on the child's neck was massively reduced. And because toddlers / babies have large heads and weak necks, it is the forward whip that is so dangerous.
Side on and rear impacts - no real advantage in safety, but these accidents were less severe anyway.
Of course, being PH, no-one could agree on anything and the thread descended into the usual petty sniping spreading over several pages.
Personally, I spent a couple of hundred on 2 decent forward facing seats for my kids (18months and 2.5 years) as
1) they like looking where they're going
2) the seats are easy to get kids into/out of
3) the seats are dead easy to switch between cars (eg wifes, grand parents, aunts etc)
4) the 2 kids can swap between seats (not an issue for you perhaps, but helps avoid tired tantrums)
5) the seats can be used all the way up to they don't need them anymore
6) me or wife can turn around and chat to them easily, hand them a drink/cracker/book/toy or all the other various things that come into their heads when you're in a car, and don't need a kid whining about something
7) And as for the safety, I just simply avoid having any accidents, which is working well so far
Ian
So if point 7 above is worrying you more than any others, I think there would be a real advantage in a rear facing seat.
I bought the best quality front facing seats that I could find - without airbags - and would do the same again.The jist of it was: there is evidence that support this view in a front on collision, because the whip lash effect on the child's neck was massively reduced. And because toddlers / babies have large heads and weak necks, it is the forward whip that is so dangerous.
Side on and rear impacts - no real advantage in safety, but these accidents were less severe anyway.
Of course, being PH, no-one could agree on anything and the thread descended into the usual petty sniping spreading over several pages.
Personally, I spent a couple of hundred on 2 decent forward facing seats for my kids (18months and 2.5 years) as
1) they like looking where they're going
2) the seats are easy to get kids into/out of
3) the seats are dead easy to switch between cars (eg wifes, grand parents, aunts etc)
4) the 2 kids can swap between seats (not an issue for you perhaps, but helps avoid tired tantrums)
5) the seats can be used all the way up to they don't need them anymore
6) me or wife can turn around and chat to them easily, hand them a drink/cracker/book/toy or all the other various things that come into their heads when you're in a car, and don't need a kid whining about something
7) And as for the safety, I just simply avoid having any accidents, which is working well so far
Ian
So if point 7 above is worrying you more than any others, I think there would be a real advantage in a rear facing seat.
Went through this a whole back and ended up importing one from Sweden (they started selling them for much less in the UK shortly afterwards!).
Yes it's good but my word they are a hassle. Not only that but it forced the passenger seat forwards to uncomfortable levels.
We stuck with it but ended up turning it around (it's a Britax with the same shape as a forward facing Evolva; which we have in our van too) and using it as a rather high prices normal seat for our daughter.
Our boy is now on a booster (he's a big five year old); can't wait until our two year old daughter is on one too!!
Yes it's good but my word they are a hassle. Not only that but it forced the passenger seat forwards to uncomfortable levels.
We stuck with it but ended up turning it around (it's a Britax with the same shape as a forward facing Evolva; which we have in our van too) and using it as a rather high prices normal seat for our daughter.
Our boy is now on a booster (he's a big five year old); can't wait until our two year old daughter is on one too!!
mollytherocker said:
JonnyVTEC said:
mollytherocker said:
How can a rear end collision be less severe? The impact is equal for both cars?
You dont reverse at 70mph maybe?Much, much lower forces involved than a head on 60 vs 60 (which is also a more frequent type of crash)
SpeckledJim said:
If you hit a stationary car at 70 mph (a weird, rare accident) then both cars will be carried forwards at >0, <70 mph. Neither car will be stopping dead.
Much, much lower forces involved than a head on 60 vs 60 (which is a more frequent type of crash)
Or indeed 60 into a tree, which is probably even more common. Much, much lower forces involved than a head on 60 vs 60 (which is a more frequent type of crash)
TA14 said:
SpeckledJim said:
If you hit a stationary car at 70 mph (a weird, rare accident)
Probably not that rare: smash on motorway - following diver not paying attention - bang!It would be a bit odd (though, granted, not unheard of) for a driver to smack into a completely stationary car without reacting/slowing at all.
All things equal, I'd prefer my little'un to be rear-facing. (Though all things aren't equal, and she isn't - she's in a front facing seat).
We have a rear facing seat in my 3 Series. Fits fine. My son is three now, and we anticipate him being in it until he's nearly four (16-18kg). The seat can be turned around if we decide to, but he likes it as is.
Problems: low sun at this time of year seems to be right in his eyes quite a lot of the time, which wouldn't be so much the case front facing. Also I don't much like driving without being able to see him, but that could be fixed with a mirror.
We bought it because the GF is Swedish and that's what they do there. (And what we read at the time suggested it would be safer).
Problems: low sun at this time of year seems to be right in his eyes quite a lot of the time, which wouldn't be so much the case front facing. Also I don't much like driving without being able to see him, but that could be fixed with a mirror.
We bought it because the GF is Swedish and that's what they do there. (And what we read at the time suggested it would be safer).
Rear facing is safer for the child, but people are arguing that front facing is better becase you may get hit from behind anyway? Some people just dont care about their children...... (Only joking)
When the new iSmart comes into play, children will have to be in rear facing up to about 15months anyway, although it will go on size as opposed to weight.
As someone else above has, we got a Cybrex Sirona, not cheap, but rear facing up to a few years (depending on growth), and rotates 90 degrees for easy in and out. Also goes front facing when you want (size dependant of course). When it is front facing, it has a 'pad' or whatever it is called as a restraint, so no harness.
For us, our girl (7 months) will be rear facing as long as possible, becase I care about her - simple!
When the new iSmart comes into play, children will have to be in rear facing up to about 15months anyway, although it will go on size as opposed to weight.
As someone else above has, we got a Cybrex Sirona, not cheap, but rear facing up to a few years (depending on growth), and rotates 90 degrees for easy in and out. Also goes front facing when you want (size dependant of course). When it is front facing, it has a 'pad' or whatever it is called as a restraint, so no harness.
For us, our girl (7 months) will be rear facing as long as possible, becase I care about her - simple!
DoubleSix said:
How are you guys keeping them in rear facing so long?
My petit 9 month old already has her feet bashing against the seat back in her rear facing Britax seat. I can't see her being in it for much more than another 6 months or so...
Feet or legs resting against the seat back isn't dangerous. So long as her head doesn't go above the top of the child seat then she is fine.My petit 9 month old already has her feet bashing against the seat back in her rear facing Britax seat. I can't see her being in it for much more than another 6 months or so...
Silent1 said:
Moonhawk said:
The impact velocity for front end collisions (i.e. front to front vs front to rear) is likely to be higher, on average, than for rear end collisions.
For example - for rear end collisions:
Car A travelling at 30mph rear ending stationary vehicle B - impact velocity = 30mph.
Car A travelling at 30 mph rear ending vehicle B travelling at 20mph - impact velocity = 10mph
For front end collisions
Car A travelling at 30mph has a head on crash with vehicle B also travelling at 30mph - impact velocity = 60mph.
The impact energy is shared between the two vehicles - but the overall amount of energy in the collision is higher if the impact velocity is higher, hence each vehicle (and their occupants) have to absorb a greater amount of energy.
Two vehicles with a closing speed of 60mph that crash into each other will dissipate the same amount of energy as a single car crashing at 30mph.For example - for rear end collisions:
Car A travelling at 30mph rear ending stationary vehicle B - impact velocity = 30mph.
Car A travelling at 30 mph rear ending vehicle B travelling at 20mph - impact velocity = 10mph
For front end collisions
Car A travelling at 30mph has a head on crash with vehicle B also travelling at 30mph - impact velocity = 60mph.
The impact energy is shared between the two vehicles - but the overall amount of energy in the collision is higher if the impact velocity is higher, hence each vehicle (and their occupants) have to absorb a greater amount of energy.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 1st January 23:57
But its also the same amount of energy being dissipated as a car crashing into a stationary car at 60mph. Next time you are doing 60 mph on a country lane, imagine smashing into a parked car.
Not quite the same as crashing into a fence at 30mph is it?
DoubleSix said:
Ok cool, but surely not very comfy for them, I like to straighten my legs from time to time on a journey. I mean, I can't imagine a two or three year old in our rear facing Britax.
Does this seat go up to three years rear facing? If so then it's fine. Age is just a guidence though where as weight is the most important aspect.boobles said:
DoubleSix said:
Ok cool, but surely not very comfy for them, I like to straighten my legs from time to time on a journey. I mean, I can't imagine a two or three year old in our rear facing Britax.
Does this seat go up to three years rear facing? If so then it's fine.matthias73 said:
Silent1 said:
Moonhawk said:
The impact velocity for front end collisions (i.e. front to front vs front to rear) is likely to be higher, on average, than for rear end collisions.
For example - for rear end collisions:
Car A travelling at 30mph rear ending stationary vehicle B - impact velocity = 30mph.
Car A travelling at 30 mph rear ending vehicle B travelling at 20mph - impact velocity = 10mph
For front end collisions
Car A travelling at 30mph has a head on crash with vehicle B also travelling at 30mph - impact velocity = 60mph.
The impact energy is shared between the two vehicles - but the overall amount of energy in the collision is higher if the impact velocity is higher, hence each vehicle (and their occupants) have to absorb a greater amount of energy.
Two vehicles with a closing speed of 60mph that crash into each other will dissipate the same amount of energy as a single car crashing at 30mph.For example - for rear end collisions:
Car A travelling at 30mph rear ending stationary vehicle B - impact velocity = 30mph.
Car A travelling at 30 mph rear ending vehicle B travelling at 20mph - impact velocity = 10mph
For front end collisions
Car A travelling at 30mph has a head on crash with vehicle B also travelling at 30mph - impact velocity = 60mph.
The impact energy is shared between the two vehicles - but the overall amount of energy in the collision is higher if the impact velocity is higher, hence each vehicle (and their occupants) have to absorb a greater amount of energy.
Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 1st January 23:57
But its also the same amount of energy being dissipated as a car crashing into a stationary car at 60mph. Next time you are doing 60 mph on a country lane, imagine smashing into a parked car.
Not quite the same as crashing into a fence at 30mph is it?
Also it is not the same as one car at 60mph
A 1000kg car travelling at 30mph has a kinetic energy of 89930 joules so 179860 joules for both cars.
A 1000kg car travelling at 60mph has a kinetic energy of 359721 joules or to put it an other way one car @ 60mph has twice as much energy as the two cars combined @ 30mph
If in a closed system a car travelling @ 60mph hits an identical stationary car after the collision they would both end up at 30mph, so the car @60mph would dissipate 359721-88930 = 270791 joules which is not the same.
Driving is a reasonably dangerous pastime and if it were practical, none of us would subject children to the accompanying risks...but it's not practical, so most people take a common sense approach that offers a good trade off between practicality and safety. Yes, you can get rear facing seats for older children. They are often large and cumbersome and none seem to deal well with the inconvenient fact that most children have legs.
There are other options - have a look at Kiddy seats. They're forward facing but don't utilise a traditional harness. This one will see them through from 9months to 12 years:
http://www.kiddy.de/en/car-seats/9months-12years/k...
They use the impact cushion system which means the child isn't pinned to the seat with a harness, meaning that their upper body is allowed to move forward in a crash, reducing the risk of neck injuries. Or so I believe - I couldn't say how they compare to the traditional design of forward-facing seats. Perhaps a compromise to consider?
There are other options - have a look at Kiddy seats. They're forward facing but don't utilise a traditional harness. This one will see them through from 9months to 12 years:
http://www.kiddy.de/en/car-seats/9months-12years/k...
They use the impact cushion system which means the child isn't pinned to the seat with a harness, meaning that their upper body is allowed to move forward in a crash, reducing the risk of neck injuries. Or so I believe - I couldn't say how they compare to the traditional design of forward-facing seats. Perhaps a compromise to consider?
Risotto said:
There are other options - have a look at Kiddy seats. They're forward facing but don't utilise a traditional harness. This one will see them through from 9months to 12 years:
http://www.kiddy.de/en/car-seats/9months-12years/k...
They use the impact cushion system which means the child isn't pinned to the seat with a harness, meaning that their upper body is allowed to move forward in a crash, reducing the risk of neck injuries. Or so I believe - I couldn't say how they compare to the traditional design of forward-facing seats. Perhaps a compromise to consider?
When I was looking for a seat to fit the GTV I was recommended to look at the BMW seats http://www.bmw.com/com/en/owners/accessories/inter... which look to be on the same principle.http://www.kiddy.de/en/car-seats/9months-12years/k...
They use the impact cushion system which means the child isn't pinned to the seat with a harness, meaning that their upper body is allowed to move forward in a crash, reducing the risk of neck injuries. Or so I believe - I couldn't say how they compare to the traditional design of forward-facing seats. Perhaps a compromise to consider?
Seats that use impact cushions have their drawbacks too.
They distribute the entire impact over the abdomen, the kid can fall out/ be flung out of the seat in a rollover and they are more likely to escape from them.
When buying for my daughter I decided to go rear facing or for a good FF one.
They distribute the entire impact over the abdomen, the kid can fall out/ be flung out of the seat in a rollover and they are more likely to escape from them.
When buying for my daughter I decided to go rear facing or for a good FF one.
boobles said:
Does this seat go up to three years rear facing? If so then it's fine. Age is just a guidence though where as weight is the most important aspect.
Seems the Britax Baby-Safe one I've got goes up to 13kgs or 15 months so that explains why I was pondering the suggestions. Looks like I've got a purchase on thee horizon 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff