Vent and even with the evidence is right there

mumof2 · Dec 1, 2011

in front of them they still claim that rearfacing is not safe in a rear impact crash.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=268421469875719.

this is what one (uneducated of course) person had to say

"this is dumb. A totally misleading attempt to sell rear facing seats. The major impact was apparently from the rear. A kid in a forward facing seat is SAFER in an accident from the rear as they are supported by the whole seat as the car jolts forward. A kid in a rear facing seat is MORE LIKELY TO BE INJURED in an accident from the rear as they are thrown hard against the belts when the car jolts forward. Are you all really so easily mislead? WAKE UP!!"

hello the evidence is right there the car is a total write off the child was 6 months old and rearfacing they came away with no injuries(not sure if they had any bruises).

jjordan · Dec 1, 2011

According to the laws of physics, the "uneducated" person you quoted is actually correct in that it is better to be forward facing in a purely rear facing collision. (Occasionally special circumstances may cause exceptions, for example if the back of a car is so completely demolished that a FF seat would have been crushed and the extra distance between a RF seat and the squished part of the car is beneficial.)

In the story you linked to, it looks like the crash had a significant front-end impact as well as rear-end. So whether rear- or forward-facing was better in this particular crash, from a physics point of view, is hard/impossible to say. It does sound like the FF passenger (the mom) was also uninjured, unless I'm missing some details (I admit I just skimmed the write-up).

Keeanh · Dec 1, 2011

This is very similar to Chely's crash -- a high-speed rear impact on a stationary vehicle. THIS is the worst-case scenario for a RF passenger. THIS is what people think they're protecting kids from when they turn them FF. But look what happened in both cases. The RF children were unharmed.

So I think what IS being proved here is that people don't have to fear that they are putting their kids at risk by rear-facing them. These crashes can put to rest the "what if I'm rear-ended?" concern.

Sure, that guy is right, in the initial impact the child may have been better off FF. But he obviously wasn't hurt by the first impact and was definitely better protected from the second impact since he was RF.

luckyclov · Dec 1, 2011

Keeanh said:
This is very similar to Chely's crash -- a high-speed rear impact on a stationary vehicle. THIS is the worst-case scenario for a RF passenger. THIS is what people think they're protecting kids from when they turn them FF. But look what happened in both cases. The RF children were unharmed.

So I think what IS being proved here is that people don't have to fear that they are putting their kids at risk by rear-facing them. These crashes can put to rest the "what if I'm rear-ended?" concern.

Sure, that guy is right, in the initial impact the child may have been better off FF. But he obviously wasn't hurt by the first impact and was definitely better protected from the second impact since he was RF.

Well-said.

Incredible story with a happy ending.

I wish it were better known that we should leave our children restrained (if at all possible) in their seats in the vehicle until first responders arrive and take over.

Vent and even with the evidence is right there

mumof2

New member

jjordan

Moderator

Keeanh

Well-known member

luckyclov

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics