Different argument against RF

oxeye · Mar 29, 2008

I know someone who is convinced that FF is safer than RF because he thinks he is more likely to be rear-ended than be in any other sort of collision because he trusts himself as a driver more than other people. Meaning that he can't avoid being hit from the rear but feels he is likely to be able to avoid a frontal or side collision.

I know the data about the most severe crashes being frontal and side. Rear-end collision are both less common (is this true?) and less severe. But how to you argue with someone who is convinced that for themselves, a frontal or side collision is very unlikely?

This person is very intelligent and physics-oriented (he's an engineer) so he understands crash dynamics and all that. Can anyone think of a better argument than "how do you know you aren't just as likely to be in a frontal or side collision as everyone else?" Because that is the best I've come up with and it hasn't worked.

popsicle · Mar 29, 2008

Ask him if his arrogance is worth his child's life. It doesn't matter how good of a driver you are. Accidents happen. You can be 100% alert and still get hit from the front or the side. Not to mention that the evasive maneuvers you have to make to avoid a collision could cause injury as well.

joolsplus3 · Mar 29, 2008

The fallacy of his argument is that FF is safer in a rear crash. It's not. RF is safer in ALL types of crashes.

oxeye · Mar 29, 2008

joolsplus3 said:
The fallacy of his argument is that FF is safer in a rear crash. It's not. RF is safer in ALL types of crashes.

Do you have any links I could send him that explain this?

joolsplus3 · Mar 29, 2008

I'm looking as fast as I can, lol... hang tight (maybe someone will beat me to it, too).

jdchic3 · Mar 29, 2008

joolsplus3 said:
The fallacy of his argument is that FF is safer in a rear crash. It's not. RF is safer in ALL types of crashes.

:yeahthat:

It sounds like he's trying to make an excuse to *have* to FF his child just like many other people do.

oxeye · Mar 29, 2008

jdchic3 said:
:yeahthat:

It sounds like he's trying to make an excuse to *have* to FF his child just like many other people do.

I think if I could clearly demonstrate that RF is safer in a rear collision as well he might turn his kiddo around.

oxeye · Mar 29, 2008

joolsplus3 said:
I'm looking as fast as I can, lol... hang tight (maybe someone will beat me to it, too).

Thanks Julie! No rush.

keri1292 · Mar 29, 2008

My thoughts......oncoming car is less than 6 feet from you. Suddenly veers into your lane. There is no time to react to that. No way to prevent it. Does he really believe he has superpowers and can avoid ANY FFing collision? He needs to be realistic. :twocents:

crunchierthanthou · Mar 29, 2008

While Jools searches for that (the study in injury prevention, maybe?), here's another thing to consider- regardless of his faith in his own driving abilities, rear impacts are statistically least common.

joolsplus3 · Mar 29, 2008

Plus, the vast benefit for RF is in side impacts... any time you go through any intersection, some insane freak could slam right into you. FF is 4 times less safe than RF in that case. Oxeye, can you PM me your email? I'll send you the study that's just come out about RF... (yeah, Crunchy, that's the one...) "Regardless of the age group considered, RFCS use resulted in
lower risk of injury than FFCS use for crashes of all directions.
The unexpected finding from these results is the higher benefit
for children in RFCSs compared with FFCSs in side impact
crashes"

MommyBoha · Mar 29, 2008

the only2 crahses I have ever been in were both rear end. I got rear ended and suffered sever whipash and life long back problems. Even in a rear end crash, the childs head isnt going to whip forward, like mine did. Fact it, RF is safer every crash, every time. Heck if I were RF in my accidents,(mind you I was 18 & 19 years old LOL) Im postive I wouldt have the back problems that I do.

joolsplus3 · Mar 29, 2008

Thanks for chiming in... Yeah, I'm always wondering why people automatically assume FF is sooooo much better when you are rearended, I mean, ask anyone about the pain of whiplash (I was barely tapped in traffic once and it hurt for daaaaaays...).

LeeLi · Mar 30, 2008

I also think it's a fallacy to assume that good driving can prevent frontal but not rear end crashes. There are ways to prevent being rear-ended just like there are ways to keep from being in a front-on or side-on crash. And even the best driver can not completely avoid being in a crash regardless of the direction. Since it is not possible to predict how the collision might occur it makes sense to be prepared for the most likely and worst case scenario, which is a high speed frontal or side impact. Thus RFing is the safest choice.

I was in an unavoidable frontal collision that totaled my car. The accident involved coming around a blind curve and being hit by a car in my lane. An inexperienced driver going the opposite way took the curve too fast and we collided an instant after I saw the car. There was no time for me to prevent the accident. Bad drivers are every where and there is no telling when/how they will cause a problem.

natysr · Mar 30, 2008

oxeye said:
I know someone who is convinced that FF is safer than RF because he thinks he is more likely to be rear-ended than be in any other sort of collision because he trusts himself as a driver more than other people. Meaning that he can't avoid being hit from the rear but feels he is likely to be able to avoid a frontal or side collision.

Have you been talking to my husband? That sounds exactly like him!

Judi · Mar 30, 2008

My crash that my son was in too was rear end. He ended up with spine issues, due to FFing.

Mae · Mar 30, 2008

Do you know the kids age/weight? I'm just curious...

*HH* · Mar 30, 2008

I can only contribute with facts from my own country(that might be of some interest for some?), here the statistics are different than in the US. It is more likely to be rear ended here, but still it is recommended to sit RF to min. 4 YR.

Why is it still recommended to RF some might ask. The traffic organization here says:
Most rear-ended collisions(where it might be safer to sit FF) happens in much much lower sped than frontal collisions that the risk for severe damage is relatively little. Preliminary numbers for 2007 shows that 2% of the people who died in a car accident sat in cars that drove in the same direction while 46% of the people who died where in meeting accidents(I'm not sure what's the correct term for this in English).

If one looks at damages from the insurance companies one sees that it is most rear-ended collisions, but the collisions that have serious injuries or death are frontal collisions. It is the latter one that is most important to protect the children(and adults of course) from.

I hope this is understandable

and mind you this is from the Norwegian view

.

southpawboston · Mar 30, 2008

MommyBoha said:
Heck if I were RF in my accidents,(mind you I was 18 & 19 years old LOL) Im postive I wouldt have the back problems that I do.

i think if you WERE RF as a driver, you'd be involved in a LOT more accidents, lol!

the major fallacy of this engineer's argument is that he *claims* he can control whether or not he is in a frontal impact. he can't. he can't control another oncoming vehicle drifting into his lane.

oxeye · Mar 30, 2008

megnjay said:
Do you know the kids age/weight? I'm just curious...

It is a very small 1.5 year old. He was RF until a year and they turned on his birthday. I doubt he was 20 pounds at that point. I don't know his exact weight but he is a tiny thing.

Different argument against RF

New member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

Admin - CPS Technician

New member

New member

CPST/Firefighter

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics