Accident statistics for Australia...

[kidnurse]

I am wondering what the injury/fatality rates are like for accidents in Australia where LO's are turned FF between 6-12 months old?

I have recently been working a lot of shifts on the post-partum unit and am doing a lot of educating on ERF. I feel like the newer the parent is when they hear the information the more likely they are to consider it. I was very pleasantly surprised on friday when I had two families that had already heard about the AAP's new recommendations. One family even RF'd a previously turned FF toddler after hearing of the recommendations. I always encourage them to have their seats checked by a tech, making sure they realise that not all fire fighters and police officers are techs, and refer them here. I also tell them that I thought I was among the very few americans who installed and used their seats correctly.....until I found this site.

I figure it couldn't hurt to add some injury statistics for children FF too soon, if they exist.

 

[LISmama810]

I haven't seen the data myself, but people have mentioned that it's not much different from ours, interestingly.

 

[joolsplus3]

I haven't seen a newer study than this one... http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/esv18/CD/Files/18ESV-000193.pdf

 

[Jocey'sMommy]

I can actually understand that their would not be much difference . . . most of my mom friends/family turn their children between 6 and 12 months here anyway . . . as soon as they reach 20lbs (and some not even that) :thumbsdown:

 

[Carrie_R]

What's interesting to me is that the stats from the study that contains the "5x safer" information indicates that there's only a slight safety difference for kids UNDER a year -- it's the kids 12-23 months that are 5x safer. Whether that's a data artifact, or if that's truly the science of it, I don't know -- but if it has scientific basis, then there wouldn't be a significant difference turning at 6m vs 12m, kwim?

That has no basis in anything other than my non-scientific musings, lol.

 

[mommyfrog]

What's interesting to me is that the stats from the study that contains the "5x safer" information indicates that there's only a slight safety difference for kids UNDER a year -- it's the kids 12-23 months that are 5x safer. Whether that's a data artifact, or if that's truly the science of it, I don't know -- but if it has scientific basis, then there wouldn't be a significant difference turning at 6m vs 12m, kwim?

That has no basis in anything other than my non-scientific musings, lol.

Maybe babies are just more stretchy/flexible then get stiffer as everything starts to become more solid. It seems like their neck gets bent and stretched a lot during birth and it's not injured. But if you did that to an older baby/kid/adult, it would hurt. Whatever the case may be, I'll leave my 3 year old rf as long as I can if only so I can sneak a candy bar without him seeing!!! Although my momtuition tells me it's safer for him.

 

[Carrie_R]

Maybe babies are just more stretchy/flexible then get stiffer as everything starts to become more solid. It seems like their neck gets bent and stretched a lot during birth and it's not injured. But if you did that to an older baby/kid/adult, it would hurt. Whatever the case may be, I'll leave my 3 year old rf as long as I can if only so I can sneak a candy bar without him seeing!!! Although my momtuition tells me it's safer for him.

Yes. My gut is that there is a period of time when things get stiffened but not yet ossified when FFing is most dangerous. My (totally unproven, completely skeptical) hypothesis wonders if it's something like 12 or 15 mos through 3 or 4 years old that's really the danger zone, kwim? So FFing from sitting up age to the first birthday would actually be LESS dangerous than FFing during the second year of life.

These are just things I muse over, based on the extremely limited data that we have. Nobody should take them as anything even vaguely resembling fact...

 

[An Aurora]

I actually read a study about this and their injury and death rates were not higher than ours. I will get on the computer and find the actual study.

Posted by a robot and susceptible to unrelated and potentially inappropriate AutoCorrects.

 

[joolsplus3]

What's interesting to me is that the stats from the study that contains the "5x safer" information indicates that there's only a slight safety difference for kids UNDER a year -- it's the kids 12-23 months that are 5x safer. Whether that's a data artifact, or if that's truly the science of it, I don't know -- but if it has scientific basis, then there wouldn't be a significant difference turning at 6m vs 12m, kwim?

That has no basis in anything other than my non-scientific musings, lol.

I think it IS a data artifact... there are *so few* kids FF in the US before that age, that the statistics are really hard to nail down. Canada has had a similar tradition of FF and top tethering younger babies, without huge worries about head and neck injury, and Germany does, too, with shoulderbelts and lockoffs mimicking top tethers... Not that I would turn my kids earlier than they must, but I tend to freak a little less about kids FF 'too young'. It's a sanity saver, when nothing else will convince the parents to RF