-
Welcome! CLICK HERE to ask a question about the best carseat or safest choice for your family. Visitor posts subject to approval.
Stats on rear facing
- Thread starter kmcenery
- Start date
ADS | |
snowbird25ca
Moderator - CPST Instructor
Most of what I have is collision reports and analysis involving restraint use. The article that appeared in the Journal of Injury Prevention January 2008 would probably be the best as it showed the overall protection provided by a rf'ing seat to be superior to that of a ff'ing seat.
Unfortunately, exact statistics are hard to come by. Crash dynamics indicate that a child is most protected in a rf'ing seat in the vast majority of collisions. However, as kids get older (like not 1yr, but 2.5, 3yrs,) the extra protection provided by rf'ing decreases. Rf'ing is always safer, but as kids get older their skeletal system develops more and their head to body proportions start to become similar to those of an adult. So at some point the benefit of rf'ing becomes small enough that it's not a risk to turn the child ff'ing. At what point that is though, is going to vary from child to child. Fusion of the spinal column isn't complete until sometime between the ages of 3 and 6, so it would make sense that by the age of 3 we start seeing a reduction in how much "extra" protection rf'ing provides.
The data from the article covers up to 2yrs of age though and shows rf'ing restraints to be significantly more effective than ff'ing restraints. I'm not sure if it's available online or not though...
In what context is the debate? Someone saying rf'ing doesn't matter, or that at a certain age it stops mattering, or ???
Maybe googling CHOP would get you somewhere? The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm insurance partnership is excellent in terms of post crash data analysis, but again, you run into factors of how was the seat installed, what were the crash dynamics at play, etc. As unfortunate as it is, some collisions are unsurvivable regardless of how a child is restrained, so that makes it more difficult to sort through statistics too - if there was a list saying 6 children in rf'ing restraints died while only 4 in ff'ing restraints died it wouldn't mean anything if it didn't talk about speed of impact, whether the restraint was properly used, if there was significant vehicle intrusion or other factors involved...
So I guess all that to say that stats that are super convincing to the people who are already critical are going to be hard to find. Try and dig up a copy of the Injury Prevention article and hopefully that will work - with it being published in a journal that should give it some extra credibility for those who are doubting the importance of rf'ing. :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, exact statistics are hard to come by. Crash dynamics indicate that a child is most protected in a rf'ing seat in the vast majority of collisions. However, as kids get older (like not 1yr, but 2.5, 3yrs,) the extra protection provided by rf'ing decreases. Rf'ing is always safer, but as kids get older their skeletal system develops more and their head to body proportions start to become similar to those of an adult. So at some point the benefit of rf'ing becomes small enough that it's not a risk to turn the child ff'ing. At what point that is though, is going to vary from child to child. Fusion of the spinal column isn't complete until sometime between the ages of 3 and 6, so it would make sense that by the age of 3 we start seeing a reduction in how much "extra" protection rf'ing provides.
The data from the article covers up to 2yrs of age though and shows rf'ing restraints to be significantly more effective than ff'ing restraints. I'm not sure if it's available online or not though...
In what context is the debate? Someone saying rf'ing doesn't matter, or that at a certain age it stops mattering, or ???
Maybe googling CHOP would get you somewhere? The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and State Farm insurance partnership is excellent in terms of post crash data analysis, but again, you run into factors of how was the seat installed, what were the crash dynamics at play, etc. As unfortunate as it is, some collisions are unsurvivable regardless of how a child is restrained, so that makes it more difficult to sort through statistics too - if there was a list saying 6 children in rf'ing restraints died while only 4 in ff'ing restraints died it wouldn't mean anything if it didn't talk about speed of impact, whether the restraint was properly used, if there was significant vehicle intrusion or other factors involved...
So I guess all that to say that stats that are super convincing to the people who are already critical are going to be hard to find. Try and dig up a copy of the Injury Prevention article and hopefully that will work - with it being published in a journal that should give it some extra credibility for those who are doubting the importance of rf'ing. :thumbsup:
Jennifer mom to my 7
Well-known member
I think I have that article bookmarked.
http://www.saferidinkidz.com/files/RearFacingBest_DrBull_et_al.pdf
ANd I have this about leg injuries. This is only an abstract though.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778476628~db=all
hth
http://www.saferidinkidz.com/files/RearFacingBest_DrBull_et_al.pdf
ANd I have this about leg injuries. This is only an abstract though.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a778476628~db=all
hth
joolsplus3
Admin - CPS Technician
Abstract of the major study...
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/398
Increase of leg injury to FF kids...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
And a random list of studies you may find a gem of info in...
http://stokes.chop.edu/programs/injury/publications/traffic_injury.php
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/398
Increase of leg injury to FF kids...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
And a random list of studies you may find a gem of info in...
http://stokes.chop.edu/programs/injury/publications/traffic_injury.php
The debate is with a person who turned her child at 6 mos because he was more comfy (he is now 6) and the new baby on the way will be turned at that age if he/she is not comfy as well. She said that she would rather have her child comfy if erf was only a tiny bit safer then forward facing. Showed the videos, showed joels store and his video nothing worked she wanted to stats. I did give her a link I found here but it had nothing from the us (page 20 has the chart). I did give up shortly after I posted this. Andie from here was helping as well and neither of us got thru so I think she gave up to. Her 6 year old is no longer in an cr and she thinks that there should be no laws for car seats because every child is differant.
This was the link I posted and told her to look at page 20.
http://www.adventuredad.com/images/volvo.pdf
I will post the links for her to see that you guys posted and see if they help.
Thank you
Andie
New member
Nope she was not convinced. We both have given up. She's calling the information from AAP & NHSTA "suggestions and guidelines".
zeo2ski
Well-known member
Well sure, feeding your kid is a suggestion too I guess. Sheesh.
What state is she in? Laws are not "suggestions" to some people. With any luck maybe she's just on the defensive now and will actually think over the info later on when she's not under heat about it. But seriously, what 6 mos old is comfier riding FFing? Tell her to just install the convertible upright RFing to keep the kiddo "comfy" when they get all the way to a whopping 6 months old.
What state is she in? Laws are not "suggestions" to some people. With any luck maybe she's just on the defensive now and will actually think over the info later on when she's not under heat about it. But seriously, what 6 mos old is comfier riding FFing? Tell her to just install the convertible upright RFing to keep the kiddo "comfy" when they get all the way to a whopping 6 months old.
luv2bfishin
New member
Grandpa here, and I need to put in my 2 cents,
You may recall a story I posted (back in September) about my 18 mo old grandson, in FF car seat , and broke his neck in a front impact crash. He was 33 lbs...a pretty sturdy boy. Snapped his neck like a twig!!
I researched hundreds of links, and posted some of the BEST on a website created for Joel, and promoting ERF. Check them out... http://www.joelsjourney.org/RFinformation.html
one article, "Actual Crash Data" is a somewhat long read.......but very thorough documentation a REAL crashes, and what happened to the kids.
Good luck
You may recall a story I posted (back in September) about my 18 mo old grandson, in FF car seat , and broke his neck in a front impact crash. He was 33 lbs...a pretty sturdy boy. Snapped his neck like a twig!!
I researched hundreds of links, and posted some of the BEST on a website created for Joel, and promoting ERF. Check them out... http://www.joelsjourney.org/RFinformation.html
one article, "Actual Crash Data" is a somewhat long read.......but very thorough documentation a REAL crashes, and what happened to the kids.
Good luck
Andie
New member
Thank you. I posted Joel's video there, and that didn't even have an effect. I will bookmark that article for the next time.
Qarin
New member
Here's where I think the problem is for many, many people- it's not just injury statistics in a crash, it's also (or even moreso) chances of getting IN a crash (which many people vastly underestimate- the vast majority of people believe they are above-average drivers).
To put some numbers on it, let's say there's a 75% chance that a 6 month old child would be seriously injured or killed while forward-facing in a collision, but let's also guess that there's only a 1/10000 chance of getting in a collision while that 6mo old child is under a year! Well, gosh, that means the odds of that 6mo old being seriously injured or killed is just 3 out of 40,0000! Now, in fact, any individual's chance of dying in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 6500 ( http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx ), so that 1/10000 is a bad guess for being-in-a-collision, but not too bad for dying-in-one. I couldn't find any solid references, but found a couple of things which suggested that your chance of being in any accident in a year are 1 in 16, so let's say that someone agrees that forward facing an infant is really dangerous, like that 75% number I made up up there, IF there's a crash, any crash- so using that 1 in 16 (which they will dispute- because they are a GOOD driver, but for pretend)... 3/4 chance of serious injury/death in the 1/16 chance of getting in an accident- 3/64 chance... wait, but it's only 6 months before they're a year old and certainly "old enough" then to forward face, EVERYTHING says THAT, so that's 1/32 chance of an accident, why that's just a 3/128 chance of that baby dying or being seriously injured: 2.3% overall chance, vs. 97.7% chance of being FINE, but "comfortable." So even with pretty pessimistic numbers (75% chance of serious injury/death- is it that high, over ALL vehicle accidents? 1/32 chance of being in an accident of any sort in the next six months is probably pretty close, but what are the real odds of being in one significant enough to cause any injury?), the odds look pretty good to many people.
Now, we think that's crazy, a 2.3% chance of dying in the next six months for a parents' impression of comfort for the infant; add to that the additional safety of rear-facing past a year and our heads are spinning with a lack of understanding of the thought process. But, there it is. The chances of dying in any individual car trip are very low, and every single successful trip reinforces how "not unsafe" the restraints used were. I honestly have no idea how to combat this thought pattern.
To put some numbers on it, let's say there's a 75% chance that a 6 month old child would be seriously injured or killed while forward-facing in a collision, but let's also guess that there's only a 1/10000 chance of getting in a collision while that 6mo old child is under a year! Well, gosh, that means the odds of that 6mo old being seriously injured or killed is just 3 out of 40,0000! Now, in fact, any individual's chance of dying in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 6500 ( http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx ), so that 1/10000 is a bad guess for being-in-a-collision, but not too bad for dying-in-one. I couldn't find any solid references, but found a couple of things which suggested that your chance of being in any accident in a year are 1 in 16, so let's say that someone agrees that forward facing an infant is really dangerous, like that 75% number I made up up there, IF there's a crash, any crash- so using that 1 in 16 (which they will dispute- because they are a GOOD driver, but for pretend)... 3/4 chance of serious injury/death in the 1/16 chance of getting in an accident- 3/64 chance... wait, but it's only 6 months before they're a year old and certainly "old enough" then to forward face, EVERYTHING says THAT, so that's 1/32 chance of an accident, why that's just a 3/128 chance of that baby dying or being seriously injured: 2.3% overall chance, vs. 97.7% chance of being FINE, but "comfortable." So even with pretty pessimistic numbers (75% chance of serious injury/death- is it that high, over ALL vehicle accidents? 1/32 chance of being in an accident of any sort in the next six months is probably pretty close, but what are the real odds of being in one significant enough to cause any injury?), the odds look pretty good to many people.
Now, we think that's crazy, a 2.3% chance of dying in the next six months for a parents' impression of comfort for the infant; add to that the additional safety of rear-facing past a year and our heads are spinning with a lack of understanding of the thought process. But, there it is. The chances of dying in any individual car trip are very low, and every single successful trip reinforces how "not unsafe" the restraints used were. I honestly have no idea how to combat this thought pattern.
luv2bfishin
New member
wow.....my head is spinning with those stats.
here are some words to ponder:
"If a disease were killing our children in the proportions that injuries are, people would be outraged and demand that this killer be stopped." C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General
"Injury is probably the most unrecognized major public health problem facing the nation today." National Academy of Sciences
"Injury Prevention has the greatest potential of all measures to reduce childhood morbidity and mortality. We must attack childhood injury with the same intensity that our predecessors assailed infectious diseases a generation ago." Matilda S. McIntire, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics
Thursday May 01, 2008, 6:03 PM
WASHINGTON - Car accidents are the No. 1 killer of children, followed by drowning and unintentional fires, Ileana Arias, the director of injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control told a U.S. Senate panel today.
here are some words to ponder:
"If a disease were killing our children in the proportions that injuries are, people would be outraged and demand that this killer be stopped." C. Everett Koop, M.D., former U.S. Surgeon General
"Injury is probably the most unrecognized major public health problem facing the nation today." National Academy of Sciences
"Injury Prevention has the greatest potential of all measures to reduce childhood morbidity and mortality. We must attack childhood injury with the same intensity that our predecessors assailed infectious diseases a generation ago." Matilda S. McIntire, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics
Thursday May 01, 2008, 6:03 PM
WASHINGTON - Car accidents are the No. 1 killer of children, followed by drowning and unintentional fires, Ileana Arias, the director of injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control told a U.S. Senate panel today.
joolsplus3
Admin - CPS Technician
http://www.cpsboard.org/pdf/techreport/TechUpdate-Summer2008.pdf
(5 times=500%, for those who have forgotten their math)
You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.
 |  |  |
Please Support Car-Seat.Org with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC