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....

[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?

[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?

[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

[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.

[mollytherocker]

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?

The driver having a 70mph front impact into a car is causing a 70mph rear impact to the car he is hitting!

[mollytherocker]

kambites said:

mollytherocker said:

The driver having a 70mph front impact into a car is causing a 70mph rear impact to the car he is hitting!

Yes, but the driver having a 70mph impact into a car travelling at 70mph the other way, is having a 140mph impact, which is rather difficult with a rear-end impact.

Ah, but each car dissapates 70 mph. Its no different.

[mollytherocker]

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.

Yes, that is correct.

So, does this mean that the argument for rear facing is relevant to head on collisions only?

[mollytherocker]

Found this which seems fairly convincing.

[mollytherocker]

Well, I have decided that rear facing it is. Having researched the subject, I am convinced that on balance, they are far safer. I am buying this for my 18m old daughter.

http://www.mothercare.com/Britax-Max-Fix-Rearward-...

At the end of the day, it comes down to her safety if the worst happens. All the arguments about being uncomfortable, not liking facing rearwards, having to put the passenger far too forward etc etc disappear into irrelavance when you look at what is important.

MTR

[mollytherocker]

SpeckledJim said:

Well, that's unarguable, but you haven't swapped your dangerous 18 year old Porsche for a new Volvo V70, have you?

Safety isn't everything.

The seat is not going in my 18 year old car. I am sure you can work that out yourself.

Safety is indeed not everything, we have to live our lives and you may aswell be dead rather than cocoon yourself in dullness and a boring existence.

However, when you can make a proven improvement to your childs safety without hardly any downsides, its a no-brainer.

Also, these will be law eventually up to 4yrs, when we catch up to other countries like Swedeen.

[mollytherocker]

jamieduff1981 said:

There's nothing wrong with the conclusions nor the facts. Much will depend on the number of passengers carried, how frequently and the type of journeys undertaken though. I arrived at a different answer, by weighting the subjective aspects differently.

I'd rather have a comfortable and contented child in the back who doesn't whine to the point of distracting me into having the crash I bought the child seat to protect her in. Crashing is a fairly rare chance event. I personally put more emphasis on enjoying the non-crashing parts more, but each to their own.

Even still, I hope your purchase works out well for you, and that you never have to rely on the extra safety.

Hi Jamie

I considered all of the points you mention. As you say, it is not a simple subject, there are many facets to it and you have to make your own decision.

I have done what I think is safer for my daughter in the majority of circumstances, considering all of the variables.

[mollytherocker]

Foppo said:

God forbid but in a really bad crash I don't think it makes that much difference

I am afraid that it does. The difference in a front impact (Circa 70% of accidents) is very big. Small children have very weak neck bones and muscles.

[mollytherocker]

You dont need a LWB Jag for a rear facing seat. The Britax fits fine in my wifes Citroen C4.

In terms of facing backwards, my daughter know no different and in any case, its tough!

[mollytherocker]

Bill said:

Have you got a source for that? Just because it seems very high. I would expect most accidents would be rear Enders (so 50:50 front:rear) but if 70% are front impacts that leaves only 30% for all the rear/side impacts. Unless it means that 70% involve a front impact. IYSWIM...

We went to Sweden when our twins were 2 1/2 and aside from the issues fitting them in the car when SWMBO and I are both 6ft+ and folding the kids up to get them into their seats they were fine with it. The seats did mean I had huge blindspots though, thankfully there's little traffic in Sweden.

I got it all from various sources, you can find it quite easily.

I too thought it would be 50/50 but there are many frontal impacts into trees, walls, stationary parked cars etc.

[mollytherocker]

Foppo said:

More important is that I drive safely and not get involved in any crashes.

You should be doing that anyway. Its not one or the other and you cant control what other idiots do!

[mollytherocker]

mekondelta said:

We have one of the BeSafe Izi Combo X3 rear facing seats. It's a great seat BUT no good in a 1-series as the rear seat of the car is angled too much so when the rear facing seat is put on, not matter how much you adjust the seat's incline my daughter still has her head leaning down when she's asleep. I'm getting rid of the car rather than the seat. Only problem is lugging the seat with me to look at prospective purchases! I'd rather have her in the safest seat possible than satisfy my whim for rear wheel drive although hopefully an E90 or E60 will have better angled seats otherwise bye bye BMW!

Yeh, the besafe is massive, thats one of the reasons I went for the Britax!

Instead of changing the car, maybe have a look at the Britax one?

[mollytherocker]

jamieduff1981 said:

Yeah - and probably grow up with hip displacement problems and generally just walk like John Wayne.

I trust all rear-facing seat owners are driving around on young Michelin PS, Goodyear Eagle F1A2s, ContiSports or similar absolutely top-notch rubber. It would of course be a contradiction to drive around on mid-range or budget tyres having made so many other compromises in favour of safety inside the cabin.

Yes, I dont buy crap tyres. But your point is irrelavant, we are talking about seats. Tyres are a totally different discussion all together, as is car choice, servicing, driving style etc etc.

The point about legs is a non issue and is the usual one that is trotted out. They are fine.

[mollytherocker]

Devil2575 said:

The point about legs isn't a non issue in any of the cars I have owned since we have had our children.
We could not have afforded to have changed cars in order to accomodate a rear facing child seat.

The point about tyres is relevant. It's about an overall approach to safety.

Personally

Affordability is totally fair and you have to do what you can with the budget you have.

Tyres are relavant but NOT to a discussion about seats! Its a totally different subject. They are in no way related.

My original question was about the validity or accuracy of the industries comments that rear facing are 5 times safer than forward facing.

My view is now that they are up to 5 times safer in the majority of accidents and that is enough for me.

All the points about legs, my child doesnt like it, they are awkward, etc etc to me are side issues and in no way 'balance out' the overall safety of the child in a major accident.