Rear facing child seats are 5 times safer....

[mollytherocker]

My daughter is 17 months old and is outgrowing the rear facing isofix seat we have.

I have been to look at some larger forward facing seats and am being advised to stick with rear facing for as long as is possible as they are '5 times safer'.

Why is this safer? Is there proof of this?

Oh, and rear facing just happen to be a lot more expensive....

[Super Slo Mo]

They support the child's head in the event of a front end biased collision, rather than having their spine telescope under the forces.

Remember to de-activate the airbag if they're being used on the front seat though, apologies if this is old news.

[Ian Geary]

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


ps I also recall hearing somewhere that airlines know full well passenger safety would be massively increased if everyone sat facing backwards, but they know full well demand would plummet. 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.

[y2blade]

"Boobles" will see this now.

He'll explain all

[Ian Geary]

pps is NP&E the best forum for this? General Gassing might get more response.

Ian

[mollytherocker]

Super Slo Mo said:

They support the child's head in the event of a front end biased collision, rather than having their spine telescope under the forces.

Remember to de-activate the airbag if they're being used on the front seat though, apologies if this is old news.

So a rear end collision is unsupported and therefore more dangerous than a forward facing? You are just trading one for the other?

[Super Slo Mo]

Essentially, yes. I guess someone, somewhere has worked out that rear end collisions may be less severe, or perhaps you're statistically more likely to have a front end collision.

My view, get whatever the heck you like.

[mollytherocker]

Super Slo Mo said:

Essentially, yes. I guess someone, somewhere has worked out that rear end collisions may be less severe, or perhaps you're statistically more likely to have a front end collision.

My view, get whatever the heck you like.

How can a rear end collision be less severe? The impact is equal for both cars?

[McWigglebum4th]

y2blade said:

"Boobles" will see this now.

He'll explain all

Ah the strange person who lives underground firing rubber children at a concrete block.

It's only his hobby

He is actually a bus driver called Alan

[Super Slo Mo]

mollytherocker said:

How can a rear end collision be less severe? The impact is equal for both cars?

It might not be, but you might be 5 times more likely to have a front end accident.

Note use of the word 'might'. That's 'cause I don't know, I'm just throwing hypotheses around to suggest reasons why they are claimed to be safer.

There is probably accident data out there that proves this one way or the other, might be worth Googling?

[mollytherocker]

Super Slo Mo said:

It might not be, but you might be 5 times more likely to have a front end accident.

Note use of the word 'might'. That's 'cause I don't know, I'm just throwing hypotheses around to suggest reasons why they are claimed to be safer.

There is probably accident data out there that proves this one way or the other, might be worth Googling?

I guess you are more likely to have a front end impact. Rear impact will always be another vehicle, so there are 2 vehicles involved thus 50/50.

But then there are front end impacts into walls etc.

Mind you, you could go backwards into a wall as well.

[mollytherocker]

In case it is of use to others, here are the other threads on this topic.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by mollytherocker on Wednesday 1st January 23:39

[oldcynic]

I've been through these hoops and found that the rear facing seats are fine for a while but you need to be very careful to check how they are designed to fit - some use a combination of isofix and floor-mounted tethers, others rely on the front seat for support (meaning that the front seat must remain in a specific position.)

You will also discover that they require noticably more space than forward-facing seats. Ours (Britax I believe) filled the whole available space in our V70, comfortably fitted in our Alhambra (middle row), and was hopelessly impractical in an Octavia (front seat was so far forward only an elf could use it)

Personally I'm not sure I'd bother spending the money again, and even my 'safety at any cost' wife would agree.

[Some Gump]

The aeroplane one is also a semi myth.
The bigger factor is that the floor and seatbacks would have t be far, far stronger - and therefore heavier, reducing capacity, or increasing fuel use.

Anyways, any modern seat is safer than what i used as a kid, which is safer than what the next generation on had (no seatbelts). Pick whichever you like and ignore anyone giving you greif.

[Zod]

There is one massive problem with them: they take up more space than is practical in most cars.

[mollytherocker]

Zod said:

There is one massive problem with them: they take up more space than is practical in most cars.

She is 17 months and fairly petite and has outgrown the rear facing isofix Maxi cosi we have and that one touches the drivers seat in my Insignia!

The advice seems to be keep them rear facing for up to 20kg as the very minimum.

[Moonhawk]

mollytherocker said:

How can a rear end collision be less severe? The impact is equal for both cars?

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.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 1st January 23:57

[oldcynic]

mollytherocker said:

She is 17 months and fairly petite and has outgrown the rear facing isofix Maxi cosi we have and that one touches the drivers seat in my Insignia!

The advice seems to be keep them rear facing for up to 20kg as the very minimum.

My experience suggests you'll struggle to get more than 12 more months out of a rear-facing seat, despite the seat claiming to last much longer. To be fair the seat was very comfortable and worked well while it fitted, although with both our youngest being especially small they were well able to wriggle/slip out of their harnesses in front or rear-facing seats. My 4YO is about 15Kg now and she has long outgrown the rear-facing last-for-ever seat we paid nearly £200 for.

We have however taken the alternative approach of purchasing a V70 with seats in the boot, so our youngest are often rear-facing because of this - and they love it

[Fer]

oldcynic said:

We have however taken the alternative approach of purchasing a V70 with seats in the boot, so our youngest are often rear-facing because of this - and they love it

Now that's a whole, different can of worms.

[Silent1]

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.

Edited by Moonhawk on Wednesday 1st January 23:57

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.