RF and rear end collisions

[TechnoGranola]

After reading the thread with some of the results of the RF study, I am reminded that the only collision where RF is NOT as safe, is for rear collisions. I am also reminded that rear collisions are the least common? or is the least chance of having a fatality?

I then remember that I have been in exactly 4 accidents since I have had kids. EVERY one, I have been hit from behind. Bizarre luck has had it that the kids have NEVER been with us when we have been hit. The last time we were hit, the entire back end of our vehicle was crushed in, we were pushed across the intersection, and we had $15,000 damage to our vehicle. So, it wasn't just a fender bender. In our particular case, it seems that statistically, our children would have a higher incidence of injury if they were rear facing than forward facing, correct?

Now, just to be clear, this is all just thoughts coming out of my head and RF vs FF wasn't a choice in ANY of our accidents (baby was under a year so legally had to RF and oldest can only FF). But, it kind of has me worried about the baby when RF, that DH and I have a tendency to get rear ended while stopped at red lights or stopped because there is a vehicle in front of us. And this has been in 3 different vehicles.

 

[joolsplus3]

There's really no injury evidence that children in RF seats are at any more danger in rear collisions, though. And consider that whiplash won't be a concern for an RF kid (that's from the neck snapping backwards...an RF kids head will snap forward, relative to their body, which is more of a natural movement and not usually injurious). If you're very concerned, the best you can do is use a seat with an RF tether (Britax, Sunshine Kids), but really, there's nothing in the data that proves you need to worry about this.

Congratulations on being a good driver, and Condolences for coming across so many crummy drivers, by the way!

 

[TechnoGranola]

Well you've made me feel better now! And rear tethering is exactly what we are doing for the next seat. I just have to make a decision on the Radian or the Marathon. With all the snow it's been slippery outside, and I fear someone is going to slide into us! If people would just get a brain and buy winter tires for their vehicles, I am quite positive we'd have WAY less accidents in the winter....

 

[snowbird25ca]

Well you've made me feel better now! And rear tethering is exactly what we are doing for the next seat. I just have to make a decision on the Radian or the Marathon. With all the snow it's been slippery outside, and I fear someone is going to slide into us! If people would just get a brain and buy winter tires for their vehicles, I am quite positive we'd have WAY less accidents in the winter....

Nah, I don't think it'd change the rate of crashes - not here in the city anyways. Most crashes happen because of driving too fast for road conditions or breaking the rules of the road - speeding, following too close, failing to yield right of way, running red lights etc.

While winter tires are something I think are important for us to have up north, I doubt that the rate of crashes would dramatically drop - people would adjust their driving for being able to stop quicker and be less careful as a result. Granted I live in a city with lots of idiotic drivers it would seem, so maybe that's not the case where you are. LOL.

(Aside from the commentary on careless drivers, I really have nothing more to add beyond what Jools said. I still don't consider being able to tether a rf'ing carseat a make or break thing when choosing a seat. There's a chance that we may buy the triumph advance when it shows up and move ds into an untethered seat to buy more front seat space and put dd back into the MA.)

BTW - I haven't seen the discussion that you're referring to yet - is it discussing the study that was released in injury prevention about rf'ing being safest? Or is it an older thread?

 

[TechnoGranola]

BTW - I haven't seen the discussion that you're referring to yet - is it discussing the study that was released in injury prevention about rf'ing being safest? Or is it an older thread?

It was this one http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=30300

 

[TechnoGranola]

I still don't consider being able to tether a rf'ing carseat a make or break thing when choosing a seat. There's a chance that we may buy the triumph advance when it shows up and move ds into an untethered seat to buy more front seat space and put dd back into the MA.

One of my main reasons for considering a rear tethering seat is for protection of my other child. In a side impact collision, the non-tethered seat will fly over to my other child's side of the vehicle (according to the crash test videos of infant seats from the NHTSA's web site). Even though her body is traveling the same direction as the seat, the door/window etc. is going to stop her body from traveling so surely the seat is going to hit her. 50 lbs of seat + baby is a lot of force for a 10 year old to be hit with. And she has no personal protection from a restraint since she is now out of a booster in our vehicle.

 

[joolsplus3]

Check out this quote from their results:

"Children in FFCSs (front facing child seats) were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in RFCSs (rear facing child seats) in all crash types"

(emphasis mine)

 

[TechnoGranola]

Check out this quote from their results:

"Children in FFCSs (front facing child seats) were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in RFCSs (rear facing child seats) in all crash types"

(emphasis mine)

Thanks! I must have missed that! or was that line not in the thread I referenced? Anyhoo, thanks!

 

[joolsplus3]

Oh, it was there, but I was looking *really* hard for it

 

[Defrost]

The thing that's hard to remember is that a rear-impact collision is NOT the opposite of a frontal-impact. It seems like it would be, I know, but the opposite of a frontal-impact would be if you were backing up and hit something. Since we usually don't back up at speeds greater than 5mph, even that is not going to create a risk for RF children.

To clarify - in a frontal impact, the vehicle's forward-motion is stopped by the crash.

In a rear-impact, the vehicle is usually stopped, sometimes moving forward. Crash dynamics are going to be complicated, depending on a huge number of variables - the speed (if any) of your vehicle, the speed of the vehicle hitting you, whether or not the impact causes your vehicle to hit something in front of you, etc. In any case, there are going to be forces exerted from both the front and the back.

In a backing-up crash, the vehicle's rearward-motion is stopped by the crash, which is what makes it the opposite of a forward-impact.

 

[shauburg]

A big :yeahthat: to Debbie (Defrost).

 

[crunchierthanthou]

Another :yeahthat: to defrost

Physics is on your side in a rear-end collision. Speeds are generally slower and both vehicles are moving in the same direction. Take a couple matchbox cars or small balls and run them into each other in a few different ways. Even in toys, it's pretty clear which are the more violent crashes.

 

[mimieliza]

Very great way of explaining it, Defrost! I've been looking for a concise way to explain this to people who question RFing.

 

[kaylee18]

In theory, the worst frontal collision (with legal U.S. speeds) would involve both cars traveling at 75 MPH. The worst rear collision would involve a car traveling at 75 MPH running into a stopped vehicle in front of it (0 MPH). The first scenario actually involves 4 times the force (not just 2X!) compared to the second. Because the force equals (1/2)*(mass)*(velocity squared). This was explained to me by an actual physicist, and I just hope I'm remembering the equation right. But it's definitely 4X the force when both vehicles are moving in opposite directions at the same speed, compared to one moving and the other standing still.

 

[TechnoGranola]

Very great way of explaining it, Defrost! I've been looking for a concise way to explain this to people who question RFing.

I hope no one thinks I was questioning rear facing as I wasn't. I was just relaying that I had read that RF wasn't as safe in a rear collision and *if* that was true, my children would be at risk due to our personal crash statistics. And hoping for info to prove what I read was wrong, and I seemed to have got that, yay!

In theory, the worst frontal collision (with legal U.S. speeds) would involve both cars traveling at 75 MPH. The worst rear collision would involve a car traveling at 75 MPH running into a stopped vehicle in front of it (0 MPH). The first scenario actually involves 4 times the force (not just 2X!) compared to the second. Because the force equals (1/2)*(mass)*(velocity squared). This was explained to me by an actual physicist, and I just hope I'm remembering the equation right. But it's definitely 4X the force when both vehicles are moving in opposite directions at the same speed, compared to one moving and the other standing still.

In our worst accident the guy that hit us was going 70 km/hr (you'll have to calculate mph) and we were stopped. He also was braking at the very last second, which would have slowed him down a bit. I quite honestly don't care that a frontal collision would have been 4x the force, as my thought were not "thank goodness this was a rear collision, if it was frontal it could have been much worse". Instead I walked around in a daze because my head was dizzy from slamming back into the headrest so hard, I stared at all the glass in DD's car seat (which luckily she was NOT in) and realized why our vehicle wouldn't move (because the back end was mushed up into the rear wheels).

I do understand what you have said, I am just saying that it doesn't matter which is worse if rear ending is what happened since a potential worse accident doesn't change the current one.

BUT, it would seem like the information I read about RF not being as safe in a rear collision was not accurate, which makes me very happy and one worry I can cross of my list.

 

[crunchierthanthou]

I know that it's hard to argue statistics when your experience is a severe rear end collision, but front and side impact crashes are more common overall (not just severe crashes). So not only are they more dangerous as a whole, they occur more often.

 

[TechnoGranola]

I know that it's hard to argue statistics when your experience is a severe rear end collision, but front and side impact crashes are more common overall (not just severe crashes). So not only are they more dangerous as a whole, they occur more often.

Heh-heh, I think I see a rear end collision daily in the winter here. But, I'd have to say that of those rear end collisions I've seen (except for ours), everyone could move their vehicle, swear at the person for hitting them, get their info and move on. The side and frontal collisions I've seen here (although way less) usually have the police and ambulance show up and the cars aren't drivable. So, although I've personally witnessed (and been in) more rear end collisions, I would say that they agree with the statistic that the front/side have been worse.

 

[laccaycol]

Ok i just have to put in my :twocents: I was rear ended (i wasnt driving) but the guy who hit us was going 45 mph. I remember flying forward before flying backwards. We were stopped at a red light as well. So i think if you were rear ended then the impact would push the child into the seat that absorbs the impact. Also i wanted to post this story im sure others have read it but wanted to put it anyway. Sorry if you have already read it. I know you got what you were looking for but it doesnt hurt to read this story either


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

 

[TechnoGranola]

Ok i just have to put in my :twocents: I was rear ended (i wasnt driving) but the guy who hit us was going 45 mph. I remember flying forward before flying backwards. We were stopped at a red light as well. So i think if you were rear ended then the impact would push the child into the seat that absorbs the impact. Also i wanted to post this story im sure others have read it but wanted to put it anyway. Sorry if you have already read it. I know you got what you were looking for but it doesnt hurt to read this story either


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

Sounds like your accident was close to the same speed we got hit at (although yours was a tad faster and our guy did notice us at the last second so tried to brake and swerve).

And thank you for the 2nd story as well. That is one scary looking accident and I am so glad everyone in the vehicle was okay!

 

[jeno]

We're another family that has been rear-ended. My DS was 18mo, 30lbs and RFacing in a tethered Britax BLVD driver-side outboard. We were slowing to a stop on a highway for a back-up. The man who hit us was likely going in excess of 40-50mph. My son faired the best of all passengers. It helped that he was asleep so his body was relaxed. My brother sitting next to him suffered severe back pain (no significant injuries) from cargo that hit the back of his seat from behind. I had a stiff neck, but again no significant injuries.