A few dumb questions for the smarter individuals...

Firstly, with the 4, 5, and sometimes 5.23 times safer rear facing statistic, can you guys give me a child ratio to throw out there? Just to explain exactly what it means.

Secondly, I remember reading about the top tether recall for the Britax seats. If I remember correctly it was only and "issue" after 50 or 55 lbs though. There was discussion though that it "failing" might actually be better and cause less force on the neck. Can someone explain (briefly as I pretty much understand it) how it works?
THANKS!!!

Whoa, those are NOT dumb questions, and I have no idea! LOL, I'd love to hear the answers!

brooklynsmommy said:

Firstly, with the 4, 5, and sometimes 5.23 times safer rear facing statistic, can you guys give me a child ratio to throw out there? Just to explain exactly what it means.

Secondly, I remember reading about the top tether recall for the Britax seats. If I remember correctly it was only and "issue" after 50 or 55 lbs though. There was discussion though that it "failing" might actually be better and cause less force on the neck. Can someone explain (briefly as I pretty much understand it) how it works?
THANKS!!!

Click to expand...

For your first question, I'm not sure where those numbers come from. Children under two are four times more likely to be seriously injured in a side impact crash if they are forward facing rather than rear facing. That number comes from a study that was recently released. I don't have a link handy at the moment but I'm sure someone else does.

As for the tether, if I remember correctly that was the Boulevard. It "failed" testing according to the "letter of the law", meaning it did not meet the requirements set out in the NHTSA code. However, the "failure" resulted in lower injury numbers rather than higher, and the "injury risk" of the "failure" was (again, if I remember correctly) pinched fingers.

I know that I have seen the numbers (different ones from different people) quoted on here when it comes to rear facing. I just wanted to have my bases covered on the number part in case I left one out!! It makes sense then that there are X times the amount of injuries.

As far as the tether thing, I found one of your past posts that explains it! Thanks!

Yes, it did. Read this thread:
http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.p...ulevard+recall
Quote:
Re: Britax Boulevard recall

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guys you need to remember that the "failure" in this case is one of those "letter of the law" things and NOT a failure to protect the crash dummy.

From the information I've seen, the tether actually performed BETTER (remember the purpose of the tether is to reduce head excursion).

However, an old requirement for the tethers is still on the books (something about the possibility for pinched fingers, iirc) and THAT is why it failed.

Definition of head excursion for those who need it:

Head excursion

The distance that the head of a child or crash dummy moves in the direction of impact or on rebound from a crash.

Higher head excursions are associated with higher risk of head contact and injury.

There are two head excursion limits for forward-facing dummies in FMVSS 213 testing.

Before September 1999, the limit was 32 inches forward of a point located about 5 inches rearward of the seat bight.

Since that date, nearly all forward-facing CRs have to meet an additional limit of about 28 inches (720 mm) from that point, but they can use a tether to do it.

Retaining the old limit provides a guarantee that the CR is structurally sound and will perform as well as older models, even if the tether is not used.
and
Quote:
From what I understand, the tether hook opened and the seat slipped into recline mode. That's not allowed to happen, not because it causes injury, but because the open hook could (in theory) pinch a child's fingers.
The net result of the hook slipping open (picture a spoon handle bending) was that head excursion numbers were even less than they would have been if the hook had performed "correctly" according to the letter of the law.
__________________

Glad to help.

Here's the link to the study.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071211/LIVING01/312110006/1006/LOCAL

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/398

Wendy

How could we quote it for the "simple minded" parents? For example, Our of 100 crashes X number of kids when FF compared to RF.

The number comes from "research" and are often by the Swedes since they've been rear facing longer than anyone. I agree that five times safer is a bit difficult to grasp so lets put it into numbers. A child, I think the reference is for a 2-year, is statistically (on average) five times more likely to die or become paralyzed while riding forward facing. Out of 100 serious crashes, 92 children will walk away "fine" while riding rear facing and 8 will die or become paralyzed. Doing the same 100 serious crashes with forward facing children means 60 kids walk away "fine" and 40 will die or become paralyzed. I think the numbers for the seatbelt is 18%. That would mean 18 kids walk away fine and 82 die or become paralyzed. Reference number 0 (zero) is for kids without seat belt or car seat. Sadly, the chance of not dying or becoming paralyzed in a serious crash without any protection is close to zero.

For a child to die or become paralyzed while rear facing in a correctly installed seat something "special" must happen. High speed is normally not enough. The few cases here when kids have died rf, a car has been crushed by a truck or something similar. Not much can be done about that.

This is difficult for some to understand but it can easily be shown in a video. You can check out Bonnie's (CRS here) in the sidebar of my site or perhaps check out this short video I put together. It shows very clearly what happens when two kids, one ff and one rf crash. Includes side side by crash test footage. Hint, keep an eye on the neck.......

Disclaimer: I've seen the rf number be quoted as 90 instead of 92 sometimes.

Simple Quote: "The most recent study from Injury Prevention Magazine has shown that children aged 12 - 23 months old are 5.32 times more likely to be seriously injured riding forward facing as opposed to rear facing."

Another quote: "A commentary form the Journal, Pediatrics, recently advised physicians to recommend rear facing for children under two." However, since 2002, the AAP has recommended children ride rear facing to the maximum weight that their car seat will allow, to take advantage of the safety benefits. (i.e. 5.32 times safer based on recent studies).

Lastly, an important thing that may be missed, is that the study's data set only went through age two. This doesn't mean that children should automatically turn FF at age two. It was just the top end of the study age limit. I would expect, that if a study is done to include children over age two, that the results would be similar. The problem with such a study, is that there are so few people taking advantage of the RF safety benefits. Thus, any study would be suspect due to the small sample size.

I hope that as more and more parents tune into extended rear facing that a meaningful study can be done to show just how much more beneificial it is to keep children rear facing as long as possible.

From the article cited above (Injury Prevention), the odds ratio for FF vs. RF, for ISS 9+ was 5.53 in side impact crashes. What this means is that in side impact crashes FF children were 5.53 times as likely to have an injury severity score (ISS) of 9 or higher than RF children. ISS 9+ is considered moderate and severe injuries. If it is limited to one year olds (12-23 months), the OR was 5.32. Either way, "FF is associated with 5 times the risk of moderate or severe injury compared to RF" is a pretty good interpretation.

One thing to note is that technically, this interprets the odds ratio in the same way as relative risk evne though they are slightly different (I'll leave you to google that). However, because the probability of injury using any restraint is low, the odds ratio can be used as a good proxy for relative risk here.

Adventuredad said:

The number comes from "research" and are often by the Swedes since they've been rear facing longer than anyone.

Click to expand...

Not this time - the most recent one I saw was from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville - about 3 hours west of me.

skaterbabscpst said:

Not this time - the most recent one I saw was from the University of Virginia at Charlottesville - about 3 hours west of me.

Click to expand...

Good stuff! Before long US will be rearfacing until age 7 and the Swedes will look silly:thumbsup:

LOL Wouldn't that be funny.