Question Car Seat Data by CAR Manufacturer/Model (FF vs RF)

lindros2

New member
I've read a bunch of articles on FF vs. RF, and I'll stay out of the debate for now, but I'm interested if there is data on car or manufacturer level?

It is difficult to compare "all passenger cars", when these include 10+ year old Toyota Corolla and domestic deathboxes with 2011/2012 5-star rated vehicles.

The video of "Joel" is novel, but doesn't tell me what type of car he was in, whether his parents used LATCH, what type of car seat, accident conditions, etc.
 
ADS

EmmaCPST

CPST Instructor
I don't think something like what you're looking for exists... but the bottom line is that physics don't change whether a child is in a 1999 or a 2009 vehicle, and the physics of force exerted on the neck and spine in a FF position compared to a RF position are what cause such serious injuries and death in children.
 

bree

Car-Seat.Org Ambassador
This video made by the Norwegian Traffic Council might help to provide a visual understanding as to why RF is safer than FF, particularly for young children.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssIsceKd6U"]YouTube - ‪Rear facing vs forward facing position in the car‬‏[/ame]
 

lindros2

New member
While the physics do not change, there are many variables:

1. "Broken legs" - there is a tremendous amount of legroom in my car, versus little to no legroom in a subcompact (Hyundai Accent, et al). If legs are broken upon seat impact, it would take quite an impact to do that in my car.

2. Collision-mitigation - to my knowledge a 1999 Toyota Corolla does not have "CMBS". My car does (tied to laser/sonar cruise control).

3. Suspension travel and brake capacity (to keep car solid and/or provide buffer as to not "glue to the ground" and cause further injury)

My point is - there are many variables which exist. I didn't want to stir the pot, but taking these studies at face value is like saying "every [insert demographic type] is stupid."

Cars are complex machines, and safety (including safety cages, etc.) has improved drastically over the past 10, 20, and 50 years.

The studies do NOT break out safety on a manufacturer (or model) by model basis.

The best I've seen is at IIHS.org. Compare these three:

1. BMW 5-series: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1374
2. Hyundai Accent: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=586
3. Toyota Corolla (pay attention to 1998-2002): http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=87
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
Of course some cars are safer than others. Some seating positions within the same car are safer than others.

That doesn't change the fact that some truths remain consistent no matter what.

A child is safer rear-facing vs forward-facing regardless of how many safety features a car has.
 

Pixels

New member
While the physics do not change, there are many variables:

1. "Broken legs" - there is a tremendous amount of legroom in my car, versus little to no legroom in a subcompact (Hyundai Accent, et al). If legs are broken upon seat impact, it would take quite an impact to do that in my car.
Do you have enough room for your child(ren) to fully straighten their legs, plus an additional 6-12 inches beyond that? During a crash, there is a tremendous amount of movement, in part due to belt stretch. The only vehicles that could possibly have that much room would be three-row vehicles with the second row removed or stowed. Possible, but not common.

2. Collision-mitigation - to my knowledge a 1999 Toyota Corolla does not have "CMBS". My car does (tied to laser/sonar cruise control).
Collision mitigation brake system doesn't do anything to reduce the likelihood that you will be rear ended, hit from the side, hit road debris, or drive off the side of the road for some reason. It also doesn't help you any when another vehicle enters your lane. CMBS does nothing to help protect the vehicle occupants from injury when the vehicle is involved in a crash, aside from activating the seatbelt pretensioners, which isn't relevant for children in harnessed seats.

Crash avoidance systems are a good thing, but nothing can protect you from every crash. The purpose of seatbelts, airbags, child restraints, vehicle safety cages, etc is to protect the vehicle occupants when a crash happens.

3. Suspension travel and brake capacity (to keep car solid and/or provide buffer as to not "glue to the ground" and cause further injury)

My point is - there are many variables which exist. I didn't want to stir the pot, but taking these studies at face value is like saying "every [insert demographic type] is stupid."

Cars are complex machines, and safety (including safety cages, etc.) has improved drastically over the past 10, 20, and 50 years.

The studies do NOT break out safety on a manufacturer (or model) by model basis.

The best I've seen is at IIHS.org. Compare these three:

1. BMW 5-series: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=1374
2. Hyundai Accent: http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=586
3. Toyota Corolla (pay attention to 1998-2002): http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=87

Yes, I do believe that newer vehicles are in general safer than older vehicles. When looking at vehicles of a similar age/era, there are some that are safer than others. None of that changes the fact that a forward facing young child is at risk for internal decapitation due to neck shear - the child's skull is literally ripped off the spine. Rear facing supports the head, neck, and back in alignment throughout the crash, virtually eliminating internal decapitation as a risk.

No matter if the child is riding in a so-called "domestic deathbox" or a 2012 5-star rated vehicle, accident physics remain the same. Infants and toddlers have disproportionately large heads and underdeveloped spines. The best protection you can provide for your child is to drive a properly maintained vehicle; secure all occupants properly; secure all cargo properly; drive the safest vehicle you can; follow all the rules of the road, especially leaving a proper stopping distance; be a defensive driver.

You referred to a RF vs FF debate. As far as I know, no such debate exists when looking at the question of what is safer. Nobody who knows anything about passenger safety believes that a child is safer forward facing.
 

carseatcoach

Carseat Crankypants
You referred to a RF vs FF debate. As far as I know, no such debate exists when looking at the question of what is safer. Nobody who knows anything about passenger safety believes that a child is safer forward facing.

Or even "as safe".
 

monstah

New member
(ETA: I'm so slow, Pixels reply wasn't there when I started. :p)

I don't believe the studies you are looking for exist. I do understand your line of reasoning though.

The type of study you are looking for will likely never exist for many reasons.
For one basic example, by the time a study specific to new model vehicles is conducted, studied and finally released to the public. There will be even newer, safer vehicles available and that study will be mostly obsolete.

But one thing that has remained certain through recent studies conducted in the US, is that rear facing is safer than forward facing in any passenger vehicle. For all occupants, adults included.

Volvo's ultimate goal is to create a car that does not crash. THAT is a car I might forward face my 2 year old in. ;)

So, would my two year old be safe forward facing in a collision in the center of a 2011 Honda Odyssey? Yes. Would she be safER rear facing in that same collision - Yes.

It's a parents decision to decide if they are OK with safe enough in certain situations or if they want to provide the safest option for their child.

We all pick and choose in life what we insist on safest practice for and when "safe enough" is good enough for us and our children. You will find that the members on this site choose and promote safEST child passenger safety mainly because motor vehicle accidents are the #1 killer of children in the US.

That is a statistic I don't want to mess with.
 

monstah

New member
I've read a bunch of articles on FF vs. RF, and I'll stay out of the debate for now

You were able to find articles that debate whether RF is safer? I'm curious to know who they were published by. Were they reputable?

I ask because I don't believe safety experts have debated this at all. For years. But I do personally know some stubborn moms ;) and some well meaning, yet uninformed, people have debated this with unrealistic fears.
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,896
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top