Can you help me find some stats?

Mommy0608 · Dec 12, 2008

I'm looking for the research that states that FF kids are 4-5 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than RF kids. I've seen both 4x and 5x, and would like to see an article or study that points to these stats if possible. I've searched high and low and can't seem to find that particular statistic (it's probably right under my nose, but I'm missing it).

Thank you!

wendytthomas · Dec 12, 2008

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

Wendy

DaniannieB · Dec 12, 2008

The only one I can find w/ that exact stat right now is this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9916868 (it says 4x safer in side impacts). I thought I remembered a similar article about that time that generalized 5x safer, based on all crashes.

flipper68 · Dec 12, 2008

Safe Ride News had an article on page 3, March/April, 2008.

http://www.saferidenews.com/srndnn/

They cite (I just happen to have it sitting next to me

, and I can type the entire bibliography while waiting for the page to load

):

Marilyn Bull & DR Durbin, "Rear-Facing Car Safety Seats - Getting the Message Right," Pediatrics, March 2008, 121:619-620.

&

Multiple authors - "Car Safety Seats for Children: Rear Facing for Best Protection," Injury Prevention, 2007, 13:398-402.

Mommy0608 · Dec 13, 2008

flipper68 said:
Safe Ride News had an article on page 3, March/April, 2008.

http://www.saferidenews.com/srndnn/

They cite (I just happen to have it sitting next to me , and I can type the entire bibliography while waiting for the page to load ):

Marilyn Bull & DR Durbin, "Rear-Facing Car Safety Seats - Getting the Message Right," Pediatrics, March 2008, 121:619-620.

&

Multiple authors - "Car Safety Seats for Children: Rear Facing for Best Protection," Injury Prevention, 2007, 13:398-402.

Ah, thank you! That's the statement I was thinking of. If I were to use that statement "Children are five times safer riding rear-facing than forward-facing into the second year of life" that they suggest, should I just cite the SRN article, or site THEIR sources? I'm an English major so you'd think I would be able to answer that myself... haha.

Thank you everyone for providing this info.

DaniannieB · Dec 13, 2008

I would site SRN, indicating that they're quoting those other sources.

Adventuredad · Dec 13, 2008

I usually cite 5 times better but perhaps like to exaggerate

Quick quetion about the Saferide News link. It there says rf is 93% effecive which is in line with what I always nag about. But ff is quoted as 78% effective. I've always heard 60%. How is 93% five times safer than 78%?

The difference between 60 and 92% is five times but the 78% numer confuses me. It might just be all the wine

Mommy0608 · Dec 13, 2008

Adventuredad said:
I usually cite 5 times better but perhaps like to exaggerate Quick quetion about the Saferide News link. It there says rf is 93% effecive which is in line with what I always nag about. But ff is quoted as 78% effective. I've always heard 60%. How is 93% five times safer than 78%?

The difference between 60 and 92% is five times but the 78% numer confuses me. It might just be all the wine

:shrug-shoulders:

I don't really know how the math works there either, honestly. I think I will list SRN as the source, because the actual article cited in the SRN article isn't accessible to the general public because it's published in Pediatrics. If someone wants to go read the info for themselves, I'd rather offer something they can easily access, KWIM?

Can you help me find some stats?

Mommy0608

New member

wendytthomas

Admin - CPST Instructor

DaniannieB

Ambassador - CPS Technician

flipper68

Senior Community Member

Mommy0608

New member

DaniannieB

Ambassador - CPS Technician

Adventuredad

New member

Mommy0608

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics