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!
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!