rearfacing in all types of crashes?

[purplemama]

After witnessing the aftermath (cleanup) of a side impact serious crash and the aftermath of a rear-end bad crash this weekend and an almost side impact (with an unrestrained child in the back seat:eek:) on my way to work last night I was wondering about something.

I know that in front end crashes (where you rear-end somebody or two cars head on) rearfacing is MUCH safer. But what about the other types of crashes? Is a rearfacing 2 year old safer in a side or rear impact than forward facing? I know that front end crashes are the most common but any type of crash could happen at any time. Seeing these accidents over the weekend really got me thinking about this. I plan to rearface my 9 month old (19lbs yesterday at doc.) as long as I can but I want to make sure he's protected as much as possible in any type of crash.

[Andie]

I am not a tech, but this is my understanding on rear impact crashes.

A rear impact would have the same effect with a rear facing seat as a forward crash does with a forward seat. However, statistically, rear crashes are at lower speeds, because you are usually slowing down or stopped, so the child would not get as hurt.

I'm sure a tech will chime in here and answer your questions. :)

[wendytthomas]

Rear facing kids are safer than forward in side impact crashes, and they're slightly less safe than forward facing kids in a rear collision. Here's the thing about that, though. Four percent of SERIOUS collisions are from the rear. You are much much much more likely to be involved in a serious frontal or side collision. Plus, a serious rear collision is being hit while you're stopped at 65 mph. That's about as bad as they can get. Most are more along the lines of 20 mph difference, if that. A frontal collision can have both of you doing 65, which means it's a 130 mph collision.

Rear facing is safest in 96% of situations. And even the most serious rear ender is about 50% as serious as the most serious frontal. If you could pause time and flip a seat if you knew you were about to be involved in a serious rear ender that'd be perfect. Otherwise you're offering the best protection for the most situations by rear facing as long as possible.

Wendy

[SingleMomTo2Girls]

Rear Facing in Rear End Collisions

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

I would still prefer to have my child rear facing regardless of the accident involved.

[joolsplus3]

The biggest advantage for RF was in side impacts (because the baby stays cradled in the seat shell, versus in an FF seat the head flies forward and sideways into the door/oncoming bumper). As for rear impacts... I never hear anyone with whiplash jumping for joy that they were FF in that kind of crash...maybe it's a falacy that being RF is bad in a rear impact after all?

[laccaycol]

ok for me i still dont understand why people think FF is better for a Rear impact. We got rear ended and i flew forward not backwards.

If your running and someone is running behind you and you stop they keep running and hit you what way do you fall? You fall forward. So the same is going to happen in a rear end crash.

[CTPDMom]

Here's the link to the Injury Prevention study:

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

It says, in part:

"Children in FFCSs were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in RFCSs in all crash types (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.20). When considering frontal crashes alone, children in FFCSs were more likely to be seriously injured (OR = 1.23), although this finding was not statistically significant (95% CI 0.95 to 1.59). In side crashes, however, children in FFCSs were much more likely to be injured (OR = 5.53, 95% CI 3.74 to 8.18). When 1 year olds were analyzed separately, these children were also more likely to be seriously injured when restrained in FFCSs (OR = 5.32, 95% CI 3.43 to 8.24). Effectiveness estimates for RFCSs (93%) were found to be 15% higher than those for FFCSs (78%). "

[purplemama]

Thanks for all your replies!! I really appreciate the information and links you shared with me. It's great to know my rearfacing son will be protected the best way no matter what type of crash. I just wish I had known about extended rearfacing with my 10 year old whom I turned at 11 months because he was big and walking and I thought you were susposed to. I've learned so much on this site!!

[scoutingbear]

I think it all goes back to Newton's laws of physics. Law #something "An object in motion stays in motion, an object at rest stays at rest." Therefore, if you think of a car stopping suddenly, as in a crash, the occupants are going to keep going in the same direction a car was travelling for a few moments. In a rf seat, the child is throw against the carseat they are already in vs the forces trying to throw them out of the seat.

[Gypsy]

Forward facing would only be safer if you were driving backwards and crashed into something.

Almost all forces in a crash go towards the front of the car - unless of course you are driving backwards, and who drives backwards at high speeds?

[canadiangie]

There's almost always an element of frontal movement during a side impact collision. Usually because you're moving forward when you're hit from the side.

At the moment of impact a ff child's head will move forward, and then over towards the point of impact. This all happens in split seconds, but that momentary forward movement of the child's head means it moves past the protection of the side walls of the car seat. This usually results in the child's head striking the interior of the vehicle.

Now consider a rf child. At the moment of impact the child's head is pushed farther into the seatshell of the car seat, then, towards the end of the crash sequence, the head moves sideways towards the point of impact. It means the seatshell of the car seat absorbs that intial devistating impact, rather than the child's neck and spine. The child's head stays confined in the seat shell of the car seat.


Hope that helps,