USA today article about unsafe third row....

[emandbri]

This was posted on the babywearer and I know this can't be right. :thumbsdown:

"When a minivan with a third-row occupant is hit from behind, the occupant is killed half the time, according to a Ford Motor analysis."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/covers/2002-03-01-car-seat-safety.htm

Techs have been told over and over again that rear impact crashes are less severe because both vehicles are going the same direction and are at slower speeds then a front or off center crash so where are they pulling this info?

The women posting is totally freaked out about buying something with a third row. Please give some insight to this crazy article.

[joolsplus3]

First, that article is 5 years old...vans have changed a lot since then (the ones on the road would have been mostly older, lap only belts, no seatbelt laws for the back seats, few head restraints--how easy is it to imagine kids bopping around in a 91 caravan? of course those poor things were dying!). Nowadays, a van with proper lap/shoulderbelts or carseats in use, with head restraints, side curtain airbags, proper use of child restraints, buckle up and carseat laws, the data are going to break out a lot differently. I hope someone has a 'real' source of Data, but Darren has said repeatedly that even he would feel quite comfortable in the third row of a van (too bad that doesn't hold water with people who don't know him, lol!)

[CPSDarren]

I had some discussions with the author of the article at the time. He was unable to directly address my inquiries regarding the study and its parameters, citing "proprietary" material lol. I concluded that the article was sensationalist and mostly hype to generate publicity. There are certainly elements of truth to it, but it was not an article based on sound scientific principles or professional writing practices.

Some key points (if I recall correctly)-

1) The study from Ford was internal. It was never published or peer reviewed. It also considered only Ford models on the road at the time (i.e. those made only in the 1990s) vs. all other models. The study parameters were not discussed, only the conclusions.

2) The main risk was due to seat back failure in severe rear enders, a problem for heavier adults that can load the seat back mechanism until it bends or breaks. The problem is compounded if there are no head restraints, as was typical of models from the 1990s. The other issue was whiplash due to rebound, a problem compounded by the lack of shoulder belts in the rear seats of most vehicles back then.


It is true that servere rear impacts involving a fatality account for less than 10% of all crashes with a fatality. I believe the Ford study cited numbers closer to 4% for minivans involved in rear-enders. Given the low frequency and given that the risk cited in the ariticle is mostly for third row seats loaded to failure by heavier adults, I have no problems putting my properly restrained children in the third row of most newer vehicles, provided they have adequate head restraint.

What is needed is not hype. What is needed is an article that properly studies kids in third row seats. It needs to compare newer models, citing risks for properly restrained vs. unrestrained kids and those in the third row vs. those in the second row. It needs to be published in a respected journal and peer reviewed. Lacking that, there really is no proof of any significant risk to children based on this 5-year-old USA Today article or any others I know. Crash tests to quantify the risks would also be helpful. I'm sure there are risks, but we really need to know how significant the risks really are for our kids in third row seats compared to other risks in motor vehicle crashes.

I'm also sure some models are better than others in regards to third row seat safety, but why worry about that when these other risks are so much greater and well studied? These other risks are also easier to compare from one vehicle to another, because there are no impact tests to measure how well the rear crush space of vehicles protects third row passengers. That model with an extra foot of space behind the third row might sound good on paper. What if it has such a rigid chassis that it transfers more rear end crash energy to a poorly designed third row seat that also lacks head restraints and a shoulder belt for the middle passenger? You can't judge frontal crash test performance only by the length of the hood, either. Without relevant statistics or crash tests, it's a crap shoot. If you are compromising safety in other areas just to get another foot of space that might not even help, you could well be putting your third row [and all other] passengers at much greater overall risk.

Also:

http://www.suvsafety.info/thirdrow.html

Ultimately, any extremely severe crash is likely to be unsurvivable. But, the statistics don't lie. Frontal crashes, side impacts and rollovers are responsible for the vast majority of crash fatalities. Combined, these are far, far greater risks than rear end crashes. Also, most fatal crashes involve unrestrained passengers, improperly restrained passengers and/or an impaired driver.

Given that, there's no question about how to best protect your family in a motor vehicle. Drive unimpaired/undistracted. Properly restrain all passengers. Drive a vehicle with good ratings in both the NHTSA and IIHS frontal and side impact tests, preferably one with side curtain airbags in all rows of seating, a good rollover rating, stability control as well as shoulder belts and head restraints (that adjust high enough for adults) in all seating positions. Once you've worried about all that, then you can focus on how the remaining vehicles might best protect third row passengers;-)

There are also a few threads on this article in the archives. I posted a couple in a recent thread in the Car Safety forum.

[codex57]

I doubt the 1/2 killed claim in that article. Still, I wouldn't feel safe in the 3rd row. Common sense comes into play.

Whether one model has a foot of space over another, doesn't really matter to me. It's still a far cry from front seat passengers who have many feet in front of them due to a hood. The space behind nearly all 3rd row seats just isn't enough to adequately provide a proper crush zone.

Yes, there's other stuff you can worry about first, but considering the increasing demand for these 3rd row seats, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. I'm not putting my kid in a 3rd row. I don't care if the statistics say my kid is likely to survive. I don't want to risk anything more than minimal injury as well.