Extended rear-facing statistic...help me process this please..

Let me preface this by saying... I am an advocate of ERF and my child still RF's. That said, I often research it, number one to assure myself I'm making a good choice and number two to keep up with the latest research, news, and recommendations so that I can be well informed and share with others and fully defend my position. So this is more of a critical thinking exercise as I wrap my head around more stats -

So...something struck me in this article...
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx

This quote... particularly what I underlined...
"In Sweden, it is standard practice to keep their children rear-facing up to the age of 5, or as much as 55 lbs. From 1992 through June 1997, only 9 children properly restrained rear-facing died in motor vehicle crashes in Sweden, and all of these involved catastrophic crashes with severe intrusion and few other survivors. "

Is this worded correctly? If so, what is the equilvelent US stat or do we even have one, I mean if all the improperly used seats and forward facing children are taken out of the caluculation could the same thing be said about the US ...semantics, maybe, but I've seen this quoted without the "properly restrained rear-facing" verbage and I think it makes a difference in what the stat is representing... OR maybe this is quoted wrong in this article and all this critical thinking doesn't matter

Thoughts? Anyone know exactly where this originated from? I am not arguing the fact that children in Sweden standardly RF longer.


Also, moderator, please move if this is the wrong section to post this in...Thanks!

I don't know the origination of the quote about Sweden. However, if you are interested, there is a US study that DID control for improperly used seats and unrestrained children and still found a significant benefit for rear-facing. You can check out that study "Car safety seats for children: rear facing for best protection" here. If you're not interested in reading through the whole study, this article sums up the major results of the study.

In the results section of the study, the authors state, "A total of 1840 children met the age and crash criteria. After removal of children who were unrestrained (21%) or had significant restraint misuse (8%) and cases with unknown restraint use/type (23%), 870 children under the age of 2 were used in the study (352 RFCS, 518 FFCS)." Thus, the researchers didn't include data about children who weren't properly restrained in the car.

Hope that helps!

I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm confident that the same can't be said of the US. What this quote says is that only 9 properly restrained rear facing kids died in a five year period. Since Sweden has only a small fraction of the population that the US has I am confident that many more than 9 children died in properly restrained rear facing car seats in the same time period in the US. There are also many other variables involved other than child restraints here. Sweden, for example, has a zero tolerance alcohol policy for drivers. You cannot have any alcohol in your blood and be behind the wheel in Sweden. I feel that factors like this play as significant if not more significant a role in the safety of Sweden's children on the road as car seat usage does.

And just as an aside, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that it's standard practice to keep children in Sweden rear facing to 5 or 55 lbs either. The most popular child restraint in Sweden is the Hi-Way and I can't imagine that it fits most children by the time they are 5 (it has the same shell as the Roundabout, but can be used to the tops of the ears), let alone until they are 55 lbs.

Bree...thanks for the other article, I am interested in reading it!

InternationalMama - you are exactly right about their being other factors. For that reason I usually try not to throw out the "in Sweden they do this...." in trying to convince folks of ERFing - because I don't feel I personally have enough knowledge or have seen enough original statistics to back up a lot of claims.

Thanks for the conversation ladies!

I don't have a link handy, but I believe a recent study found that rear facing is so much safer that even improperly used RF seats perform amazingly well. (Which is not to say it's a good idea to use them improperly, but you KWIM. )

skaterbabscpst said:

I don't have a link handy, but I believe a recent study found that rear facing is so much safer that even improperly used RF seats perform amazingly well. (Which is not to say it's a good idea to use them improperly, but you KWIM. )

Click to expand...

This is something that Adventure Dad says, but he didn't have a study. Well, his argument was that an improperly installed rear facing seat probably still will perform better than a properly installed forward facing seat. He said he believed it to be true based on insider info from the industry. I'd be interested if there is a study on this out there.

I'm 99% certain there is, but I've had two massive computer failures and lost most of my links. try PMing joolsplus3, she may have it.

Ack, and just to add, I remember reading this in some post, but can't remember where BUt, to me it does make sense, when you think of the crash forces involved in a front end collision.

Good question. Sweden strongly recommend rear facing to at least 4 years of age which most parents follow. There are not many 5-year olds sitting rear facing. There are also some who turn kids forward before age 4. This is more common with foreigners or immigrants who grew up with a culture where car seat safety wasn't even talked about. I'm married to a Mexican and have many Latin friends, it's quite a large contrast in habits My wife has been brainwashed with rear facing but I'm still working on some of our friends

Interesting to me is that the car seat laws are quite relaxed, a parent could turn a child here FF at 6 months. Parents still RF to age 4 which I think show the nice benefits of good information plus researchers, government, and society in general working closely together to protect kids. The lack of forward facing seats for small kids, there are none available, also is an important factor IMHO.

The quoted statistics you mentioned sounds correct to me. Almost all children who sit rear facing in Sweden do so in "correctly" installed seats. Installation is many times not perfect and might include lose harness, lose tether straps or other things. Using a rear facing seat has many benefits, one of them is it's "forgiving " regarding installation.

I'm not sure how much to talk about this since we all know installation is very important and I don't want to communicate the wrong message. A correct installation RF is far less crucial than FF due to crash mechanics. In a FF seat there is only the harness holding a child back. A RF child is mainly protected by the back of the rear facing seat. All mistakes while installing are multiplied when FF compared to RF. Skaterbabs explained it well in her post.

I don't have a link handy, but I believe a recent study found that rear facing is so much safer that even improperly used RF seats perform amazingly well. (Which is not to say it's a good idea to use them improperly, but you KWIM. )

Click to expand...

Incorrect installation RF would mean some serious issues such as threading seat belts completely wrong or not using them at all. I therefore interpret the "properly restrained" as parents who are keeping kids rear facing with a decent or better installation (which is almost everyone). Mentioning the quoted statement is a way of sorting out the accidents where children were not in a restraint at all (which is unusual)

Kids have been sitting rear facing since 1965 in Sweden, I sat rear facing in 1967, and the experiences learned is pretty much what the quoted statement says. We have discovered that it's almost impossible for a rear facing child to die or become seriously injured regardless of circumstances in a collision. This is very clear and one main reason why rear facing is so dominant here, we simply know it works extremely well.

During 2007 and 2008 only two children died in traffic accidents in Sweden each year in age group 0-6 years. That's pretty good. These accidents were also catastrophic and not survivable. Please note that by "traffic accidents" all children dying in traffic are included. That includes a child in a car seat but also a child killed walking on the sidewalk or backed over by a car.

We've come along way.... In 1970 58 kids died in traffic, and now were down to very low numbers. :thumbsup:

Every now and then there is a deeper study done, usually by the world leading research and crash test facility VTI in Sweden, looking at the exact cause of every single death of a child in traffic. These studies confirm that children sitting rear facing almost never die or become seriously injured regardless of circumstances.

Allowed blood alcohol level in Sweden is 0,02% and there are plenty of random checks where a few hundred cars are stopped. Drinking one beer and driving right away means being right at the allowed limit. I think factors such as this one and also others really help to improve overall traffic safety.

Skaterbabs, regarding your computer crashes.... You should try a backup service called Dropbox. Keeps multiple computers synced and also a copy in the clouds in case of a crash. First 2 GB are free and there service is generally very affordable (I'm a very happy user myself). Or just change to a Mac... **ducking for cover**

I think there are somewhere around 9 million in Sweden, but someone correct me if I'm wrong, and there are almost the same amount of people in Portland, OR. So, when I use that statistic with my friends in Oregon, I tell them the Swedish stat, then ask them how many kids they think died from car accidents that live in Portland. So far most have dropped it, knowing that far more than 9 kids in the last month have probably died there. I don't know what the statistic is, or how to find it, but common sense, to me, says that out of 9ish million people who live in Portland, I highly doubt that they are practicing ERFing, let alone safe car seat practices. Just my opinion though, and definitely not backed by any specific data. (It's worked so far though, lol)

mommy2jasmine said:

I think there are somewhere around 9 million in Sweden, but someone correct me if I'm wrong, and there are almost the same amount of people in Portland, OR.

Click to expand...

You asked... the population of Portland, Oregon, is about half a million. The total population Oregon is under 4 million.

There are around 12mil in the greater Bay Area region of California.

Qarin said:

You asked... the population of Portland, Oregon, is about half a million. The total population Oregon is under 4 million.

There are around 12mil in the greater Bay Area region of California.

Click to expand...

As well, it appears, if I'm search the FARS (Federal Accident Reporting System) that 26 children aged 5 and under died in Oregon in motor vehicle accidents in 2008.

I'm not actually sure the OP's concern with the quote about 9 children properly restrained died- I think it sounds high to her? Like it implies that being properly restrained rear-facing was the problem, that it killed them, and if they'd been properly restrained forward-facing they would have lived? But the rest of the quote makes it pretty clear to me that the point is that 9 children died in unsurvivable accidents, so maybe I am misinterpreting the OP's question.

Qarin - totally misinterpreting! I don't think it sounds high at all...I just thought the statement was a bit vague - what is the definition of "properly restrained" for example? I do NOT think RFing was the problem at all - I am a firm believer in the saftey of ERFing. I'm also a thinker, I love digging into research and stats and discussing them like we are doing here! It helps me learn and better defend my position to those who don't think RFing is important.

I think there is A LOT of solid data and research out there for the benefits of ERFing. I also think that there is some that may be valuable but is sometimes not supported, misquoted, or vague, albeit in the name of a good cause.

AdventureDad - Thanks for your info! I am amazed that you sat RFing in 1967! My mom had top tethers installed for my brothers and I in 1982 and people thought she was crazy. I think that we will see ERFing spread in the US as our children who RF longer begin having children of their own (Yikes!)! Funny that you should mention being married to a Mexican, my SIL is from Guadalajara, she and my brother got married on the beach in Vallerta and I was amazed watching all her family roll up to the hotel and unload with unrestrained kids! Lots of infants in arms...luckily she's been won over by me and my little niece rides very safely in the States and at her grandparents in Mexico.

Mommytojasmine - OT but wondering about your siggy pic...we just ordered XTSL's and they aren't here yet but the headwings in your pic look a lot higher than I imagined they would be - if that is a Radian?... is it just because she is leaning forward? Or are they really high enough that the kids can see below them? I'm a little worried about my 5 y.o. complaining about not being able to see.

Marvin711 said:

Qarin - totally misinterpreting!

Click to expand...

Phew!

Qarin- Thanks for the info about the FARS. I had no idea that existed.

Wow, where the heck did I get my info, lol. I'll stop using that "data" ASAP. What the heck was I thinking!? I thought maybe Alaska, or Washington, but neither of those are close either. Well, I convinced a couple people off of it, I just hope they don't go looking up that any time soon, lol :/

Thanks for correcting me. There's gotta be a city somewhere with 9 though, because I remember looking it up. Hmmm

That was when we first got the seat, and I had her at the 2nd slot, which doesn't allow use of the headwings. She has since moved to the 3rd slot, although barely, lol, and we use them now. I don't want to highjack this thread, so I'll PM you a pic of her with the headwings down. Your 5 year old will definitely be able to use them, unless he's got a smaller torso than my 2.5 yr old, lol. And, they won't get in the way. She was able to see Christmas Lights perfectly fine out of a multitude of cars this winter, and she's kinda short.

Mommytojasmine - OT but wondering about your siggy pic...we just ordered XTSL's and they aren't here yet but the headwings in your pic look a lot higher than I imagined they would be - if that is a Radian?... is it just because she is leaning forward? Or are they really high enough that the kids can see below them? I'm a little worried about my 5 y.o. complaining about not being able to see. [/QUOTE]

Marvin711 said:

Qarin - totally misinterpreting! I don't think it sounds high at all...I just thought the statement was a bit vague - what is the definition of "properly restrained" for example? I do NOT think RFing was the problem at all - I am a firm believer in the saftey of ERFing. I'm also a thinker, I love digging into research and stats and discussing them like we are doing here! It helps me learn and better defend my position to those who don't think RFing is important.

I think there is A LOT of solid data and research out there for the benefits of ERFing. I also think that there is some that may be valuable but is sometimes not supported, misquoted, or vague, albeit in the name of a good cause.

AdventureDad - Thanks for your info! I am amazed that you sat RFing in 1967! My mom had top tethers installed for my brothers and I in 1982 and people thought she was crazy. I think that we will see ERFing spread in the US as our children who RF longer begin having children of their own (Yikes!)! Funny that you should mention being married to a Mexican, my SIL is from Guadalajara, she and my brother got married on the beach in Vallerta and I was amazed watching all her family roll up to the hotel and unload with unrestrained kids! Lots of infants in arms...luckily she's been won over by me and my little niece rides very safely in the States and at her grandparents in Mexico.

Mommytojasmine - OT but wondering about your siggy pic...we just ordered XTSL's and they aren't here yet but the headwings in your pic look a lot higher than I imagined they would be - if that is a Radian?... is it just because she is leaning forward? Or are they really high enough that the kids can see below them? I'm a little worried about my 5 y.o. complaining about not being able to see.

Click to expand...

More talk about ERF is always beneficial. It's always good to get input which
is skeptical, hesitant or just curious since so many parents are in this situation.

Habits are hard to brea which is why car seat habits and car seat culture is important. We want to get to the point where the default behavior is kids sitting rear facing for much longer than today. This will save lots of lives and decrease serious injuries significantly.

Mexican car seat habits are pretty non-existant like in most Latin countries. I've spent lots of time down there and will be down there 7 weeks in March-April this year. All kids travel , "Latin Style" as I jokingly call it No seat belt, no car seat, and preferably open windows so the kids can hang halfway out and see what's going on It's quite tough to see....

I peak into parked cars constantly and seeing any type of car seat is unusual.

My SIL is using a Britax Hi-Way (Rf 0-55 lbs) for her 12 month old which we left down there. I've spoken to her repeatedly about rear facing but her husband thinks car seats are for wimps. I just found out they are using the Hi-Way, but are keeping it forward facing. The seat is not even made for this, nothing good is likely is going to happen in a collision.

When we're down there I'll be doing a segment on TV with a friend of mine about rear facing and car seats in general. Should be fun.:thumbsup:

As well, it appears, if I'm search the FARS (Federal Accident Reporting System) that 26 children aged 5 and under died in Oregon in motor vehicle accidents in 2008.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot, can that really be correct?

Adventuredad said:

Sounds like a lot, can that really be correct?

Click to expand...

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

I know it sounds high to you, because you live in a country where there are so few child deaths in accidents! Even if you look at per capita rates, it's much higher here. But it's probably correct.

Adventuredad said:

Sounds like a lot, can that really be correct?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes, I believe it is correct.

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/QueryTool/QuerySection/SelectYear.aspx

If you start there, select the year (2008) and submit, then click on "age" and submit, then "Oregon" as the state, and choose "univariable tabulation", then choose "age" as your variable and submit, it shows a list of the total fatalities by age:

Age Total
Up To One Year 3
1 Year 4
2 Years 6
3 Years 3
4 Years 6
5 Years 4

----

The FARS is the "Fatality Analysis Reporting System", not whatever it was I said it was earlier.