Forward facing in car seats

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

They're not that hard to find. Tony Kealys do a couple and there's a good few places on line.

As has been said, I'd rather have a grumpy kid with their neck in one piece. It's OK for front seat adults, as they will most likely have airbags to stop their head disconnecting from their spine in a crash but back seat kids don't have that luxury.

I've never heard of Tony Kealys.

I agree that they're safer, no argument there. Though personally I think limiting time in the car is better than any car seat etc.

pwurple

Just out of interest, the video shows a front impact. I assume if you are rear ended in the car, with a rear facing seat the damage to a spine is the same as a front impact with a front facing seat?

Is it just that more accidents are front on than rear that the risk is reduced?

Moonbeam

I looked in to this and only 4-5% of crashes are from the rear.
I am pretty sure crashtest.com have more up to date info.
I don't have a link to the stats for Ireland.

CashMoney

pwurple wrote: »

Just out of interest, the video shows a front impact. I assume if you are rear ended in the car, with a rear facing seat the damage to a spine is the same as a front impact with a front facing seat?

Is it just that more accidents are front on than rear that the risk is reduced?

The most serious crashes are head on collisions where two cars driving at a relatively slow 30mph crashing into eachother head on is effectively the same as crashing into a parked car at 60mph.

The second most serious crash is crashing into solid object (wall, tree, etc) which will obviously be a frontal impact unless you're in the habit of reversing places at speed.

In both of these most serious of circumstances, you would want to be rearfacing.

There is still a risk that you might get rear ended at speed but every crash that involves getting rear ended at speed also involves a frontal impact too i.e you could be the one doing the rear ending. So even in rear ending situation there is a 50/50 chance that you would be better off rear facing too depending on which car you're in. But as said above, getting rear ended at speed accounts for a relatively small number of serious crashes.

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

The most serious crashes are head on collisions where two cars driving at a relatively slow 30mph crashing into eachother head on is effectively the same as crashing into a parked car at 60mph.

The second most serious crash is crashing into solid object (wall, tree, etc) which will obviously be a frontal impact unless you're in the habit of reversing places at speed.

In both of these most serious of circumstances, you would want to be rearfacing.

There is still a risk that you might get rear ended at speed but every crash that involves getting rear ended at speed also involves a frontal impact too i.e you could be the one doing the rear ending. So even in rear ending situation there is a 50/50 chance that you would be better off rear facing too depending on which car you're in. But as said above, getting rear ended at speed accounts for a relatively small number of serious crashes.

I thought the most serious and dangerous crash is when you're hit by another car into the side of your vehicle?

Moonbeam

which accounts for about 24-25% of crashes according to the stats I was reading.

CashMoney

nesf wrote: »

I thought the most serious and dangerous crash is when you're hit by another car into the side of your vehicle?

I think the relative speeds involved in a head on collision are widely under estimated.

Again though it's the same thing with a side impact - this also involves a frontal impact of the car coming from the side. Almost all serious crashes involve a frontal impact.

Also some interesting reading from carseat.se regarding side impact collisions:

"Things are unfortunately very different in real life due to "pre-impact breaking".

Pre-impact braking occur in a high percentage of accidents from the side and basically means that a driver hits the brakes just before impact. This makes a big difference in how our children's vulnerable head and neck area is protected.

In a typical side collision, head of a forward facing child will be thrown forward just before collision due to pre-impact breaking. This leads to poor protection despite deep "side wings" regardless if it's a harnessed or a high back booster seat. A rear facing child is far more fortunate. In an accident a rear facing child will be pushed further into the car seat just before collision, due to pre-impact breaking, leading to excellent protection for the weak neck and head area. As any doctor will say: "We can fix arms, legs and many other things. We can't fix head and neck".

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

I think the relative speeds involved in a head on collision are widely under estimated.

Again though it's the same thing with a side impact - this also involves a frontal impact of the car coming from the side. Almost all serious crashes involve a frontal impact.

Also some interesting reading from carseat.se regarding side impact collisions:

"Things are unfortunately very different in real life due to "pre-impact breaking".

Pre-impact braking occur in a high percentage of accidents from the side and basically means that a driver hits the brakes just before impact. This makes a big difference in how our children's vulnerable head and neck area is protected.

In a typical side collision, head of a forward facing child will be thrown forward just before collision due to pre-impact breaking. This leads to poor protection despite deep "side wings" regardless if it's a harnessed or a high back booster seat. A rear facing child is far more fortunate. In an accident a rear facing child will be pushed further into the car seat just before collision, due to pre-impact breaking, leading to excellent protection for the weak neck and head area. As any doctor will say: "We can fix arms, legs and many other things. We can't fix head and neck".

Sure, but you've substantially more protection on the crash side of the vehicle on a front on front collision. I agree the "crash speed" will be far higher, probably double and very dangerous, but a side crash is lethally dangerous even at relative low speeds.

CashMoney

nesf wrote: »

a side crash is lethally dangerous even at relative low speeds.

Very true and the evidence seems to suggest that even for side impacts, rear facing is best too.