Where did the 500% or 5x safer come from?

mommyof3tx · Oct 4, 2011

I always use that when talking about extended rear facing but where is the actual research that shows that statistic? That also only applies to 12-23mo if I remember correctly, is that true? We know it's safer longer but I seem to remember whatever I read that gave me that number it was for those ages

mommyof3tx · Oct 4, 2011

Nevermind finally found what I was looking for

Stelvis · Oct 4, 2011

Yes, the study that concluded that only looked at those ages, because there just weren't enough kids RFing past 2 to draw meaningful conclusions. As far as we know, RFing at age 3 might only be, like, 4 times safer.

Genevieve · Oct 4, 2011

If I'm remembering correctly, the five times safer is also referring to side impact crashes not frontal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I can't really search on my phone.

murphydog77 · Oct 4, 2011

Genevieve said:
If I'm remembering correctly, the five times safer is also referring to side impact crashes not frontal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I can't really search on my phone.

Yes.

A recent analysis of the protection provided in rear-facing compared with forward-facing car safety seats has revealed that children under the age of 2 years are 75% less likely to die or sustain serious injury when they are in a rear-facing seat.2 This finding was true regardless of direction of the crash, even those crashes with side impact, which typically are the most severe.

This is from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/3/619.full.

mommyof3tx · Oct 4, 2011

Thank you! So even for being hit from the rear it showed them still 75% safer? I always hear that argument, that if you are hit from behind they wouldn't be safer

jess71903 · Oct 4, 2011

I always say "up to" 5x safer or whatever.

Sent from my Desire HD using Car-Seat.Org

bree · Oct 4, 2011

Genevieve said:
If I'm remembering correctly, the five times safer is also referring to side impact crashes not frontal. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I can't really search on my phone.

There are 2 different stats from the study. One refers to 0-23 month olds in side impacts. The other refers to 12-23 month olds in all crash types (including frontal, side, and rear). Both could be summed up as "5 times safer" stats. However, when the "5 times safer" stat is being touted by researchers, they are specifically referring to the one about the 12-23 month olds in all crash types, not just side impacts.

The full study is here, and Table 3 is the spot to look for all the stats.

bnsnyde · Oct 4, 2011

I thought that being hit from the rear is just as if they were forward-facing. So bad news. Though I know it's likely to be lower speeds if hit from the rear.

We were TAUGHT that for side-impact, rear or forward facing makes no difference. Now, if there is a side--crash that's also part frontal (probably pretty common), well then perhaps there is some benefit to rear-facing.

But I HATE the whole idea of side-impact. They are deadly and there is no magical answer. I am always worried about side-impact.

hrice · Oct 4, 2011

bnsnyde said:
I thought that being hit from the rear is just as if they were forward-facing. So bad news. Though I know it's likely to be lower speeds if hit from the rear.

We were TAUGHT that for side-impact, rear or forward facing makes no difference. Now, if there is a side--crash that's also part frontal (probably pretty common), well then perhaps there is some benefit to rear-facing.

But I HATE the whole idea of side-impact. They are deadly and there is no magical answer. I am always worried about side-impact.

RF provides a ton of SIP. Way more than FF. So, yeah, RF DOES make a difference in a side impact collision.

bnsnyde · Oct 4, 2011

In class they held up a seat and said that if something hits it in the side it makes no difference forward or rear. So that's just what they said. And I think they meant directly in the side, something more in line with a laboratory crash test almost. Most real-world crashes will have other forces, I imagine.

I prefaced it with what we were TAUGHT because you never know...maybe it wasn't accurate. I don't know. That's what the class learned, though.

Carrie_R · Oct 4, 2011

RF is of the greatest difference in a side-impact crash... it's actually a bigger difference RF vs. FF in side impact crashes vs. frontal. It has to do with the shell of the seat (vs the child's body) swinging towards the point of impact, I believe.

RF in a rear crash is definitely an odds game... IIRC, only 4% of serious crashes are rear crashes. So by RFing, we're protecting kids in the best possible manner from 96% of severe crashes. (I also have a theory that the different rotation of the seat may make a difference -- how the carseat is attached to the vehicle -- but that's neither here nor there.)

Where did the 500% or 5x safer come from?

mommyof3tx

New member

mommyof3tx

New member

Stelvis

New member

Genevieve

CPST Instructor

murphydog77

Admin - CPST Instructor

mommyof3tx

New member

jess71903

Ambassador

bree

Car-Seat.Org Ambassador

bnsnyde

New member

hrice

New member

bnsnyde

New member

Carrie_R

Ambassador - CPS Technician

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics