Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

The Two-Way plus is a great seat and very popular with foreigners. It handles rear facing to 55 lbs, harnessing to 55 lbs, and use as a belt positioning booster until 55 lbs. It has the highest seat shell of all Swedish rear facing seats together with Britax Multi Tech. Those two seats are about 2 inches higher then rest of seats.

A Swedish seat is certified for Europe (ECE R44) and other countries but technically illegal to use in US. It has little to do with testing, ECE R44 is know to perhaps be slightly tougher than the US FVMSS standard. I usually say both standards are very good and tough.

There is large interest among US (and others) parent in these seats due to the rear facing capabilities. You won't believe how many email I get from parents who are terrified of being forced to turn their 2 year old forward since he/she is too heavy. Many parents use the Swedish seats because they simply want to keep their kids safe and rear facing in the car and are very upset about these seats not being available everywhere.

I think one should be honest and say that a 2 year old 30 lbs. baby is about as safe in a regular Britax Marathon (or other) as in a Swedish rear facing seat. The huge difference comes when one has to turn around forward facing and the other can continue to use seat rear facing. The difference is not as large as at 12 months but still HUGE. The tragic accident with Joel is jut one example.

The Swedish seats are also very popular because they are easy to install and can be used in virtually any vehicle without any special equipment. Price is higher but seats can be used for a very long time. Britax Multi Tech for example, cost just over $500 to US but can be used from 9 months to 7-9 years. That usually includes rear facing to age 5-6. That's not a cheap seat but perhaps not toop bad considering usage. The above Britax Two-Way can also be used rear facing for most until 5-6.

Just my two cents, if this car seat is so wonderful that someone was able to "legally" get it sent to her and able to use it for medical reasons, you would think they would make it legal to buy it and use it here for any parent just because its safer.

Doesn't make sense. I mean, how hard is it to do the crash tests with it here, and get it approved.

Click to expand...

The seat is just as wonderful as it sounds. Swedes have been using rear facing seats since 1965, I sat rear facing in 1967, and so far over one million rear facing sets have been used. So far there has not been one single death in a correctly installed seat (except for drowning etc.). So they are pretty good IMHO. Not certifying seats in US has a lot to do with politics and also the lack of focus on car set safety in US. Even if these great seats were available, I don't know if people would buy them Many parents keep their kids completely unrestrained or turn forward at 12 months or less, this will not take care of that problem. Most US parents, and also in other countries, are simply very poorly informed regarding car seat usage.

It's an interesting point that Southpaw points out. What would be better, get the seats certified and available first or wait until there is more interest? I don't know the answer but it would be interesting to find out.

The crash testing in US is different than Europe. In US it's self certification. That means that I could personally do crash testing of Swedish seats at a US facility, get them certified, and put a sticker one of my choice. For example, "Certified by Adventuredad". It would then be legal to use in US. It's also not terribly expensive to do this. I've actually talked to someone in the business who knows how it works and he's mentioned many interesting things.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

Adventuredad said:

I think one should be honest and say that a 2 year old 30 lbs. baby is about as safe in a regular Britax Marathon (or other) as in a Swedish rear facing seat. The huge difference comes when one has to turn around forward facing and the other can continue to use seat rear facing. The difference is not as large as at 12 months but still HUGE. The tragic accident with Joel is jut one example.

Click to expand...

Please define "HUGE". Are children over 2 years and 30 pounds dying at significantly increased rates due to being front facing or in a booster?

I would be very interested in any peer reviewed study of USA statistics showing the difference in RF vs. FF/booster children demonstrating a "huge" difference for kids beyond 24 months old. If you can produce one, I will move this unsubstantiated thread hijack back out of the International forum.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

I don't have a number, but considering the difference is 500% at 12 months it would be less than that. I guess you're implying that the difference is very small. Going for 500% to zero in 12 months would be very impressive. Especially considring adults are safer rear facing as well.

There are peer reviewed studies which says difference in 12 months old kids is huge. Are you saying the difference has disappeared in 12 months? I the difference not huge? If so we can all put our kids forward facing at that point and be happy:thumbsup:

You can put the thread in any forum you want, it doesn't bother me. Why don't you just delete the thread instad of renaming it incorrectly? This has nothing to do with Sweden vs. USA

unsubstantiated thread hijack

Click to expand...

LOL, you can remove any part or my answer, or I can do it, that you find inappropriate and put it back it back where it belongs.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

Adventuredad said:

I don't have a number, but considering the difference is 500% at 12 months it would be less than that. I guess you're implying that the difference is very small. Going for 500% to zero in 12 months would be very impressive. Especially considring adults are safer rear facing as well.

Click to expand...

I am not implying anything about the difference. I am implying that you don't know what you are saying. What does 500% mean? Are you saying 5x (or 6x) as many kids die from being front-facing at 12 months than rear-facing at 12 months? If so, then yes, I absolutely want to know what the difference is beyond the 24 month and 30 pound mark that you used. Guesses and hunches are swell, but it's unsubstantiated without any statistics. Again, please find one peer reviewed study that shows this.

There are peer reviewed studies which says difference in 12 months old kids is huge. Are you saying the difference has disappeared in 12 months? I the difference not huge? If so we can all put our kids forward facing at that point and be happy:thumbsup:

Click to expand...

No. I didn't say anything about 12 months at all in my short post. You brought up 2 years and 30 pounds and now you are back pedaling. Please, one study.

You can put the thread in any forum you want, it doesn't bother me. Why don't you just delete the thread instad of renaming it incorrectly? This has nothing to do with Sweden vs. USA

Click to expand...

Your entire post was a commentary of Swedish practice and comparisons to the USA. You could have simply answered the original posters questions, but instead you insisted upon dragging Sweden vs. USA into it again despite numerous warnings not to do so. So, your post was moved. Again.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

500% means 5X. That's the number which is normally cited by people on this board from Saferide or similar. It means five times safer.

I understood your post as saying the difference at 2 years isn't huge. I'm simply saying that international research says rear facing is 5 times safer at 12 months or rather 0-23 months. It would then be strange if the difference was small, say 20%, at 24 months. Do you understand what I mean?

Sorry about the Swedish stuff, I get too carried away since I've seen the benefits.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

Adventuredad said:

500% means 5X. That's the number which is normally cited by people on this board from Saferide or similar. It means five times safer.

Click to expand...

I think you should look into what 500% means in terms of this study, before extrapolating it into a guess about what happens to kids beyond 2 years old. Just because someone cited it doesn't mean it is relevant. I supect many people that cite this number don't really know much about what it means.

I understood you post as saying the difference at 2 years isn't huge. I'm simply saying that international research says rear facing is 5 times safer at 12 months. It would then be strange if the difference was small, say 20%, at 24 months. Do you understand what I mean?

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what you mean. I would be very interested to see a study that shows that 5 times as many kids die in the USA at 12 months because they are front facing instead of rear-facing. Is this what you mean?

I would also be very interested to know if the author of this research thinks the results are easily extrapolated to say that the difference in risk of death for kids beyond 24 months when turned front-facing is "huge".

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

I don't think you understand what you mean. I would be very interested to see a study that shows that 5 times as many kids die in the USA at 12 months because they are front facing instead of rear-facing. Is this what you mean?

Click to expand...

No that's not what I mean. I can understand your disagreement if you thought that was my point. I was not implying that, at least not on purpose...... My understanding has been that they don't measure it like that. It's the "effectiveness" of the method that's measured. The number "five times more effective" or "five times safer" comes from many studies but I would not translate that into fatalities.

I've never said that five times as many die front facing compared to rear facing. I don't think that's accurate. Sorry if I somehow implied that.

My point was that if the restraint is 5 times safer, or more effective, at 0-23 months, it would be strange if the difference suddenly disappeared after a few additional months. That's why I called it "huge"

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... Sweden vs. USA again

These definitions of "huge" and "5 times safer" are pretty crucial when you are making guesses that a parent might use to decide if they want to spend many hundreds of dollars to import a child restraint that may or may not actually be safe or legal in their situation.

As for the age range, it's quite possible the differences start to disappear long before 23 months, but that the study did not have enough data to break it down by month, rather than by year. I've had some correspondence with Dr. Sherwood on their findings, the flaws in the study and the statistical significance of the results. You might want to do so, also, before extrapolating their results beyond what was measured in the study.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... can we buy/use it in the US?

Interesting discussion and perspectives:thumbsup:

I'm seeing much more interest in rear facing which I think is a positive change. There is also far more interest in ERF. I get a significant amount of emails each week from US parents asking about ERF and many wanting Swedish seats. This is of course a very small amount of the population but increase in interest is noticeable even on a weekly basis.

Perhaps more interestingly, there is far more interest from other countries who are just discovering rear facing (at almost any age). This week alone there are many emails from parents in countries such as Portugal, Germany, France, US, China, UK, Ireland, Brazil, New Zealand, Australia, and Spain.

My impression is that far more parents are starting to care a little more about car seat safety regardless if kids are rf or ff.:thumbsup:

It seems like higher fines and stricter laws would be effective in US according to what Darren say. Maybe laws saying longer time rear facing, stricter laws regarding early booster use, and perhaps stiffer fines for unrestrained kids. Would that be a good way to make parents rear face a little longer or approach car safety more effectively? My concern is about enforcement, are there really enough resources (and interest) at the moment to enforce this? During my previous 15 years in US I didn't see the interest but it's possible it has changed during the past 5 years.

They don't suddenly go up at the 12-23 month age because kids are turning front facing. They are generally flat for each age and in fact, the trend is for slightly fewer fatalities in each 12 month age group from birth to about 6 years or so. This alone isn't enough to make any conclusions since it has many other variables involved, but it does show that there isn't some huge rash of fatalities starting at age 1 or 2.

Click to expand...

Injury rates go up dramatically after 12 months when comparing rear facing and forward facing. There is an international study from Volvo (if it's not alright with an international study I can remove this) showing the difference very clearly (see chart below).

It shows injury rates comparing Sweden and Germany. Germans forward face at 9-12 months. In the chart it can be seen that injury rates in Germany are a little higher the first year when infants in both countries are rear facing. At 12 months, when Germans kids ff and Swedish continue rf, the injury rate is almost 5 times higher for forward facing. It says:

Note in particular the differences from the age of
one onwards. That is the age when most German
children start using forward-facing child seats,
whereas most Swedish children travel in
rearward-facing seats until at least their third
birthday.

Click to expand...

I'm at my country house and can't link to study, I can update with link tomorrow. The whole pdf pamphlet is excellent and cover many things except rear facing.

It can also bee seen while comparing France to Sweden. Fatalities are much higher up until 6 years, when many Swedish kids are rear facing. After that, when kids are forward facing, the difference in fatality rates go down. The first year quite a few french kids die but many are not even in car seats.

(If the talk is too much international stuff, please let me know and I will remove it. There isn't too much info about comparing erf.)

Originally Posted by Calleiah
I start to feel like everyone around me thinks Im a little crazy for being so safety
conscious.

Click to expand...

LOL, I know the feeling......

Like Darren says, prices of these seats are expensive but not much more than a normal Swede pays for a seat. Difference, including shipping, is about 10%. Two-Way is quite good bang for buck I think and so is Multi Tech. Two-Way can be used from 9 months to 6 years or so. That's quite a few years. Multi Tech cost just over $500, which is only 10% more than Swedes pay in stores, shipped to US but it's usable from 9 months to 7-9 years. I think that's good value for such a long time although it's more expensive than going for cheapest alternatives.

(Please lt me know if this is too much Swedish stuff and I will remove it:thumbsup

Have a nice Christmas

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... can we buy/use it in the US?

the graph comparing germany and sweden is somewhat compelling, and is consistent (although not conclusive) with RFing being safer. however, the graph comparing sweden and france is not compelling at all and provides no clue as to the reason sweden's fataility rate is lower than france's. also, the absolute numbers for both sweden and france are extremely low; to say there is a 2-fold (not even that, but let's say 2-fold for simplicity's sake) difference in child fatality between france and sweden from 0-14 years is not saying much at all. at such low incidence, 2-fold becomes less meaningful. at least that's what i was taught in statistics. and with any graph data, i have to question, what was the sample size (n=???)? where are the std. dev lines? where are the z-factors? sorry if i'm sounding picky, but this information is important when you are dealing with small numbers. i have to graph scientific results almost daily and have to deal with situations like this, where the absolute numbers are very small yet show differences between groups. statistical analysis of the results is necessary to extract "meaningfulness" out of them.

for example,

the fact that france is much closer to sweden in terms of child fatality rate, as compared with germany vs sweden, makes me wonder what factors differentiate france from germany? isn't france just as bad as germany when it comes to ERF?

and more curiously, why does the france fatality rate actually go DOWN after one year (whereas it spikes in germany) if there is such a jump to FF at an early age? clearly there are other factors at play here... perhaps adventuredad can explain these inconsistencies.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... can we buy/use it in the US?

A few problems plague studies done in the USA.

Unless a fatality is involved that requires better documentation at the scene, details about restraint type and use are often sketchy at best.

Regardless of whether a fatality is involved, almost no data exists for proper use at the time of a fatality or serious injury.

For many things, there is minimal data. This is true for extended rear-facing. The author of the recent study admits this was an issue for some of their results, along with a number of other issues that make absolute conclusions difficult. Instead, he says the study was more appropriate to suggest trends they are finding. I hope he will agree to have a chat session in the near future on the topic.

As for those graphs, the fatality graph is similar to the CDC data I compiled and linked. The fatality rates from motor vehicle crashes tend to drop for children over 1 year old and then begin to rise again around 6 years old. That seems to roughly track both France and Sweden.

I also note that the graphs are presented vs. population, rather than per million vehicle miles travelled, which is usually how such data is shown. If the French drive more frequently, that easily explains the absolute differences.

Re: Britax Two Way Plus... can we buy/use it in the US?

Southpaw, I agree with the France data not being convincing to me either. I know that it's far more common that the French drive with infants not restrained at all, they are essentially lap babies. Could that explain the difference? I'm really into math but don't have the details you're looking for regarding deviation, sample size etc., especially not now when I've had two bottles of wine I will talk to my contact at Volvo on the 27th and ask some questions

The German data is for injuries and not fatalities which I think should be noted. I think that data looks compelling but I don't know sample size and details. But it confirms what researchers have been saying for many years, rear facing is about 5 times safer than forward facing. Benefits decrease with age but are still significant at age 3 as can be seen in chart. I think benefits can be called large or huge at that age IMHO.

QUOTE]Again, please find one peer reviewed study that shows this.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

You asked before about one study which showed children are dying at a rate 5x in US. This is not what I or anyone else was saying, the definition has been 5X safer. This study shows rear facing is 5X safer than forward facing and benefits also continue far beyond 2 years which is what researchers have been saying for many years. Fatalities are one thing but injuries are important as well.

This is something Volvo has published, the data is supposed to look at all data during 1999 which would include lots of data in Germany and Sweden. Volvo is not known for publishing unreliable stuff but I will try to find out more details. Swedes are boring and our accident data tends to be quite specific. I don't think it's a fluke rear facing until 4-5 is recommended.

I will look for he data but since I've spent lots of time in Germany I personally believe Germans drive more due to Autobahn and much better cars.

France are like Germany not known for excellent erf

I agree with Darren it's not much data available for erf. This is partly why I rely more on track record etc. But as Southpaw has pointed out before, this track record also include tons of factors which may or may not have anything to do with rear facing. Interesting to hear from Darren about potential data issues in US


Whatever the conclusions are, I think it's an interesting discussion.:thumbsup: