Re: AAP recommending rearfacing to at least age 2
http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger_safety/certified-tech/rear-facing-seats.pdf
http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger_safety/certified-tech/rear-facing2.pdf
Most of the benefit is due to performance of RF child restraints in side impacts.
There were some quirks in this study. At a conference last year, Dr. Bull presented statistics for this paper. One showed that infants actually had lower risk when front-facing as compared to toddlers. When asked about this, she was unable to address it.
I contacted Dr. Sherwood about it and he suggested that the results should be taken in context with limitations of the study, including relatively low sample sizes, limitations on crash specifics like misuse, limitations on age data and other issues. All evidence available to us at this time indicates rear-facing is safer than front facing, with the benefit diminishing as we grow older.
This study touts a "5 times safer" figure. I can't dispute that, but given what I've been told about the study, I'm a little hesitant to throwing it around blindly. For the masses who throw a kid into a car with little additional thought, perhaps it is a reasonable figure. On the other hand, for a typical reader here, what does it mean?
For example, take a typical 18 month old who is 26 pounds. They are properly restrained in a front-facing 5-point harness seat in a newer vehicle with reasonable crash test results. How many times safer would they be if they were rear facing? If you ask the authors of this study, they would surely tell you that the study does not apply to important variables like these. In fact, I suspect the overall risk is so low in this case, that even if the relative risk was 2x greater, it would be meaningless. Just my 2 cents.
http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger_safety/certified-tech/rear-facing-seats.pdf
http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger_safety/certified-tech/rear-facing2.pdf
Most of the benefit is due to performance of RF child restraints in side impacts.
There were some quirks in this study. At a conference last year, Dr. Bull presented statistics for this paper. One showed that infants actually had lower risk when front-facing as compared to toddlers. When asked about this, she was unable to address it.
I contacted Dr. Sherwood about it and he suggested that the results should be taken in context with limitations of the study, including relatively low sample sizes, limitations on crash specifics like misuse, limitations on age data and other issues. All evidence available to us at this time indicates rear-facing is safer than front facing, with the benefit diminishing as we grow older.
This study touts a "5 times safer" figure. I can't dispute that, but given what I've been told about the study, I'm a little hesitant to throwing it around blindly. For the masses who throw a kid into a car with little additional thought, perhaps it is a reasonable figure. On the other hand, for a typical reader here, what does it mean?
For example, take a typical 18 month old who is 26 pounds. They are properly restrained in a front-facing 5-point harness seat in a newer vehicle with reasonable crash test results. How many times safer would they be if they were rear facing? If you ask the authors of this study, they would surely tell you that the study does not apply to important variables like these. In fact, I suspect the overall risk is so low in this case, that even if the relative risk was 2x greater, it would be meaningless. Just my 2 cents.