How can RF and long legs be safe?

dimsumdaddy · Jan 1, 2008

I came across this picture on http://www.freewebs.com/sacredjourneys/albumrearfacing.htm

I think this is an under discussed issue. This child's legs are far longer than the seat. Although RF is safer than FF, this looks to me an exception to that rule. At this age, the childs head to body ratio is smaller (and stronger) so now it appears to be an issue of twisted legs due to the contortions the child must do since there is no leg room.

Starlight · Jan 1, 2008

This is the child of one of our members. Last I knew, the child preferred to RF, as it gave her some place to put her feet, as opposed to having them dangle when she sat FF. (She is too tall to RF now, though.)

I believe the phrase goes: Broken leg, cast it. Broken Neck, casket.

crunchierthanthou · Jan 1, 2008

Rear facing is always safer. Potential leg injuries (though I know of no documented cases) cannot compare to possible neck injuries. We'd all be safer rf. There was an episode of Mythbusters, which I know isn't the most scientific of research, that found that the safest seat on an airplane is the rf harnessed jump seat where the flight attendants sit. There was a talking head bit with a FAA official saying possible debris was the only reason all airline seats weren't required to be backward (no one wants to get hit in the face with a suitcase). They also showed old footage of a crazy guy doing rf crash tests in a rocket sled. It was unbelievable the amount of force he could walk away from.

That being said, I would probably feel comfortable with a child her age ff. If she doesn't mind, I don't see any reason to turn her around.

Mama! · Jan 1, 2008

This is my ds in his new Signo.

Patriot201 · Jan 1, 2008

As was previously stated, that is the child of one of our much-loved members.

The child, while meeting the minimums for FF, had not yet outgrown the RF limits of the seat. As was stated, she preferred rear-facing. I think she is now FF since she has outgrown the seats RF.

As was stated, RF is always safer. While the little girl pictured does in fact have a smaller head (ratio-wise) than a young toddler, she still was still able to benefit from the additional safety that RF was able to offer. There are more benefits to RF than just the head/neck issue that young toddlers face.

As the others stated, there are no documented cases of children being seriously injured or killed from extended rear-facing and their legs being "contorted." Most kids find it more comfortable and there are no known dangers from their legs being bent.

lovinwaves · Jan 1, 2008

Actually that seat is the Radian which provides the most rear-facing leg room that I know of. If you think that picture is bad you should see some others LOL!

I see adequate leg room in that picture. She is clearly quite comfortable with them propped up on the back of the seat.

When a child is rear-facing is allows them to put their legs in various positions, whereas forward-facing they don't have as many options.

ETA: The girl in the picture is quite lightweight for her age. Most kids are well over 33 or 35lbs at her age. If more people would research and/or have common sense, I think pictures like this wouldn't seem odd or be questioned

dimsumdaddy · Jan 1, 2008

Patriot201 said:
As was previously stated, that is the child of one of our much-loved members.

No insult was intended. I just choose the first picture that illustrated my question.

One thing I'm concerned with is that people seem to only be concerned with frontal collisions. If the child with long legs are straddling them over the side, and a side impact occurs, the leg can break. It just seems that the lack of leg room encourages "over the side leg straddling". Not all accidents are frontal fatal collisions.

I'm not advocating FF as better, just trying to look at all angles of the issue... not just the popular ones.

Namegirl · Jan 1, 2008

dimsumdaddy said:
One thing I'm concerned with is that people seem to only be concerned with frontal collisions.

The vast majority (I believe it's 70%) of crashes are frontal. That's why car manufacturers, carseat manufacturers, and carseat techs make frontal protection a priority.

It has also been shown that RFing is a benefit in rear-impact crashes, as well.

Most extended RF kids don't hang their legs over the sides--that would be very uncomfortable. Most cross their legs indian-style.

CandCfam · Jan 1, 2008

dimsumdaddy said:
One thing I'm concerned with is that people seem to only be concerned with frontal collisions. If the child with long legs are straddling them over the side, and a side impact occurs, the leg can break. It just seems that the lack of leg room encourages "over the side leg straddling". Not all accidents are frontal fatal collisions.

I'm not advocating FF as better, just trying to look at all angles of the issue... not just the popular ones.

Side impact collisions are the most dangerous, and where being RF is absolutely best (RF is best in impacts from all directions, but SI especially). The vertebrae do not start to fuse until around age 3, and I'd much rather deal with leg injuries than spinal cord injuries that are generally life-threatening.

lovinwaves · Jan 1, 2008

dimsumdaddy said:
One thing I'm concerned with is that people seem to only be concerned with frontal collisions. If the child with long legs are straddling them over the side, and a side impact occurs, the leg can break. It just seems that the lack of leg room encourages "over the side leg straddling". Not all accidents are frontal fatal collisions.

I'm not advocating FF as better, just trying to look at all angles of the issue... not just the popular ones.

We sure do love a great discussion, and playing devil's advocate. So your questions and feelings are definitely welcomed here

Frontal/offset frontals are more common. Side impacts are the most fatal since there is no crumple zone or "ride down time". Rear-enders although making up 10% of crashes tend to be less severe, because usually one car is stopped and/or the other vehicle sees the vehicle it is going to hit and has time to brake or slow down.

A child being rear-facing also benefits in a side impact collission (again the most lethal) because the child's head and neck are cradled in the side wing of the seat. Therefore reducing head excursions.

We can heal a bone, but we can't heal a severed spine

azgirl71 · Jan 1, 2008

lovinwaves said:
We sure do love a great discussion, and playing devil's advocate. So your questions and feelings are definitely welcomed here

Frontal/offset frontals are more common. Side impacts are the most fatal since there is no crumple zone or "ride down time". Rear-enders although making up 10% of crashes tend to be less severe, because usually one car is stopped and/or the other vehicle sees the vehicle it is going to hit and has time to brake or slow down.

A child being rear-facing also benefits in a side impact collission (again the most lethal) because the child's head and neck are cradled in the side wing of the seat. Therefore reducing head excursions.

We can heal a bone, but we can't heal a severed spine

:yeahthat:

scatterbunny · Jan 1, 2008

Rear-facing is SAFER in side impacts, not just frontal collisions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9916868/

Kids in Sweden rear-face to 55 pounds, and they have the lowest death rates in auto accidents. No harm due to long legs/rear-facing there.

Again, broken legs can be casted and will heal; chances of a broken spine healing just as well are slim to none. Chances of the child dying from a broken leg are slim to none; chances of dying due to a spinal cord injury are huge.

Have you seen this photo album? http://cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum.aspx Kids as old as 4-5 (obviously still under the 33-35 pound rear-facing weight limit of US carseats) still happily rear-facing in those photos!

Melizerd · Jan 1, 2008

Also here's another thread talking about rear-end collisons and RFing and something Defrost said that made sense to me:

http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=30429&highlight=rear-impact+collision

Defrost said:
The thing that's hard to remember is that a rear-impact collision is NOT the opposite of a frontal-impact. It seems like it would be, I know, but the opposite of a frontal-impact would be if you were backing up and hit something. Since we usually don't back up at speeds greater than 5mph, even that is not going to create a risk for RF children.

To clarify - in a frontal impact, the vehicle's forward-motion is stopped by the crash.

In a rear-impact, the vehicle is usually stopped, sometimes moving forward. Crash dynamics are going to be complicated, depending on a huge number of variables - the speed (if any) of your vehicle, the speed of the vehicle hitting you, whether or not the impact causes your vehicle to hit something in front of you, etc. In any case, there are going to be forces exerted from both the front and the back.

In a backing-up crash, the vehicle's rearward-motion is stopped by the crash, which is what makes it the opposite of a forward-impact.

elle7715 · Jan 1, 2008

You can see a picture of my daughter rear facing in my signature. It's about 4 months old but she hasn't grown much since then. She has plenty of room for her legs in the Radian. Since she is thin (like the girl in the photo you posted) she'll probably be under the rear facing weight limit for a long, long time. If she starts complaining about her legs being cramped then we'll turn her around. But honestly I don't see that happening any time soon. She has plenty of room for her legs in the Radian and doesn't even have to cross them. I wouldn't put her rear facing in a Marathon on a daily basis though. I think we can trust our kids to tell us when they get uncomfortable. Like previous posters said, many older kids prefer rear facing because their feet just dangle when they are forward facing.

dimsumdaddy · Jan 1, 2008

lovinwaves said:

Cool!

However, I wonder what the severity of accident break down is for each of those zones. Although the occurrence is highest for front at 35%, I want to know the spectrum that each of those zones are made of.

IE, as mentioned earlier, side impacts (although less frequent) are more severe. So that cool picture doesn't show severity for each zone.

Connor's Mom · Jan 1, 2008

dimsumdaddy said:
I'm not advocating FF as better, just trying to look at all angles of the issue... not just the popular ones.

I agree with all the info posted and I think that it proves that it is more than a "popular angle" of the issue but a proven safety fact. :thumbsup:

lovinwaves · Jan 1, 2008

lovinwaves said:
Side impacts are the most fatal since there is no crumple zone or "ride down time". Rear-enders although making up 10% of crashes tend to be less severe, because usually one car is stopped and/or the other vehicle sees the vehicle it is going to hit and has time to brake or slow down.

dimsumdaddy said:
IE, as mentioned earlier, side impacts (although less frequent) are more severe. So that cool picture doesn't show severity for each zone.

I somewhat explained this in my above post I quoted.

Side impact crashes account for 28 percent of all fatalities, the majority of which involve a brain injury. That is why you are seeing more and more vehicles with Side impact airbags as a standard feature.

joolsplus3 · Jan 1, 2008

Side impacts aren't more severe, they are more dangerous because cars have not been designed to protect people in side crashes (until recently, with stronger safety cages and side airbags). Rearfacing is 4 times safer in a side impact (the head stays protected and contained in the bowl of the seat shell... in a frontal facing seat, the head flies forward and then sideways into the door or oncoming bumper). Front facing seats are only a little bit safer in frontal crashes, statistically. Maybe as more cars get 'good' side impact crash ratings in IIHS testing then we'll find rearfacing isn't 'so much safer' than forward facing, but it will probably always be at least somewhat safer (as we know from the examples already given...and Sweden with their kids RF till at least age 3).
And yes, my own kid was WAY more comfortable RF than FF till age 4 http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum/SarahMA.aspx

dimsumdaddy · Jan 1, 2008

lovinwaves said:
I somewhat explained this in my above post I quoted.

Side impact crashes account for 28 percent of all fatalities, the majority of which involve a brain injury. That is why you are seeing more and more vehicles with Side impact airbags as a standard feature.

Yes... I had read your post, and that's the type of info I was saying was lacking in the "cool diagram" when I said:

IE, as mentioned earlier, side impacts (although less frequent) are more severe. So that cool picture doesn't show severity for each zone.

Anyways... appreciate all the responses.

Synchro246 · Jan 1, 2008

Why is driverside side impact more common?

NAK

How can RF and long legs be safe?

New member

Senior Community Member

New member

New member

Car-Seat.org Ambassador

New member

New member

Senior Community Member

New member

New member

CPST Instructor

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics