To not understand the way some people's perception of risk (specifically cars), especially in the UK.

[honeytea]

A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why some things are seen as very dangerous and to be avoided and some things are seen as acceptable even if statistics show they are infact dangerous.

There are so many health and safety rules about everything in the uk, warnings about swimming in lakes and rivers, the schools have huge fences and locked gates, people are warned not to share their bed with their babies but it is still acceptable to put children in forward facing car seats from a very young age.

I live in Sweden, here kids and adults swim in the lake, school groups swim in the lake, the schools are very open, no fences, their playgrounds are often the local park, new mums are encouraged to share their beds with their babies but the huge majority use rf car seats.

the child death rate due to accedents is lower in Sweden despite the lack of safty rules.

AIBU to think that the focus is on the wrong things?

OP I can't emphasis how much I agree with you. I am.a psychologist and have read a lot around what poor judges of risk we are. I'm also a non driver but have purchased a rear facing seat for DD occasional journeys as I know cars kill. I also cannot bear the lack.of understandings around bed sharing....most babies who are victims of SIDS are in.cots and no.one has banned cots. YANBU!

I'm not advocating the UK approach particularly, I think the advantages of some activities more than outweigh any risks that might come with them and it's a valid approach to say 'yes, we know it's risky but the benefits are worth the risk'. That's not quite the same as saying the risk doesn't exist though.

Car journeys for DC are frequently luxury not necessary Cory, DC do not ferrying to.hundreds of far away activities. It's optional!

*risky should perhaps say 'some level of risk'

Re : erf - The regulation changed last month but the old regulations lasts until 2018.

www.britax.co.uk/safety-centre/regulations/regulations

There is also the Joie which is very reasonably priced. Increased demand should help bring prices down eventually.

www.kiddicare.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/productdisplay0_10751_-1_169424_10001

Sorry for repeat info. Somehow missed out page 2,

A body facing backwards in a collision can take up to a 50g impact as opposed to 30g facing forwards. It is because of the protection afforded by the rib cage. I'm fact some RAF planes have all the passengers facing backwards, it feels odd but is a lot safer. Captain Scarlet was ahead of his time it turns out (for those of us who remember that)

I live in Malaysia, where most people don't use seatbelts, never mind car seats. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a driver on the motorway with a baby on their lap (sometimes texting).

Education, innit?

For those who'd like to rear face longer but can't afford it, the britax first class plus is 0+/1 combination seat, due to the seat back being higher than an infant carrier, it should allow an infant to stay rear facing until 13kgs (which according to my red book is 2yrs old for a child on 50th centile). It's a good option if you have a child that's outgrown an infant carrier but still under 13kgs. They can be bought for 100 pounds. The britax two way elite is an extended rear facing seat that fits most cars, it's 200 pounds. It rear faces until 18kg (around 4yrs) and forward faces until 25kg. These are still expensive seats but are cheaper than many and may be affordable to those who can't afford 300+ for a car seat.

Baby outgrew her rear facing first child seat so I went to shops, online and bought the next size. A Britax for about £180. I bought the one that I could afford that got the best safety reviews.

At no point did Mothercare, Halfords, Kiddiecare, Mammas and Papas, Precious little ones or Bounty list a rear facing seat as a second seat. So YABU to suggest in the UK we are risk takers by using front facing seats when actually it comes down to availability.

However is this a safety campaign in the making? Most second car seats go to the age of 4 or 7 so I wouldn't buying another rear facing one for now and I am sure that a lot of other (safety conscious british) parents would feel the same.

grobagsforever Sat 10-Aug-13 09:20:18
"Car journeys for DC are frequently luxury not necessary Cory, DC do not ferrying to.hundreds of far away activities. It's optional!"

I absolutely agree. But then I am Swedish.

Swimming in the sea and wandering the woods in winter otoh- basic necessities.

i have come to the conclusion that some people have very odd risk assesment in the uk.. or just on mnet.

when.you see threads where people wont leave kids in the car whilst they pay for pwtrol. or wont leave ten year olds home alone for five mins etc.

obviously everything depends on the insividual child but i do think there is something screwy about risk perception.

my youngest is 2.5 and my eldest almost 14, i didnt know about rf for longer when he was little but did with my younger ones. so kept them rf as long as possible in their first stage carseats. but erf not availabe locally or affordably at the time we weee buying. i did always check which reports etc on which carseats were safest. if i had another child i would get an erf seat.

i do think its a knowledge/awareness problem. the information hasnt been made well known and lack of availability in shops and advice given by retailers etc.

I had to go through the accident stats just to see if my perception was off. Injuries to children in car accidents are very low with drivers and front seat passengers making up the vast majority of injuries and deaths on our roads in Ireland. I am willing to bet that your actual risk of an accident every time you sit into a car given the vast number of journeys completed each day in negligible. So on a purely risk assessment basis forward facing seats are fine but rear facing are obviously better. Rear facing car seats are completely impractical for long journeys IMO and we never use the car for short journeys, the level of discomfort does not justify their use for older children so op while I completely agree that risk perception is skewed I personally think extended rear facing is part of the skewed risk perception.

Berg holt, I'm confused now as my maxi cosi cabriofix says it is suitable up to 13kgs too, and it is a classic style infant carrier.

There are so many factors to considerbin the RF/FF question. I use my car as a city runaround. I have never ever seen a head on collision in this city. Side on and rear end are rare.

Comfort, communication and cost are also relevant factors.

Oh GAWD, it's yet another online thread evangelising about RF.
And here I naively thought it was going to be a long overdue "see sense be safe but don't be hysterical we all survived childhoods rolling around on backseats without any belts" thread.

ARRGGGHHHHHhhhhhhh....!! (runs away screaming)

The topic does rather tap into our anxieties

Maybe in Sweden RF is more important due to the very different climate and landscape making different types of collision more common.

I agree with neunand I considered RF but decided to look at the accident stats before doing so as I felt they didn't look so comfortable and if DD is anything like me she might get awful travel sickness when she's a bit older and I suspect will find RF worse. After looking at those stats I decided to go for FF. The risk of SIDs is much higher than dying in a car crash btw - though obviously smoking and drug use are the major risks there rather than co sleeping, but it might explain why people worry about it.

In Italy it is unusual to see kids in car seats. Also unusual to see them tethered in at all a lot of the time.

Not refuting your base point just pointing out that on a scale the uk is not the worst car safety offender.

In RF car seats the child has a great view out of the back window. We also have a forward facing seat for using in other people's car, my daughter gets a crap view out of the door window when she's in that.

I've read research that says rear facing reduces car sickness, think it's because of the constant view out of the back, rather than the whizzing past you get out of the side view.

For people saying RF seats won't fit in their car, don't just check the manufacturers notes ask a decent stockist. Our RF seat isn't on the manufacturers list but it fits fine. Securatot also do great videos on how to fit the seats.

There are more becoming available all the time.

Why are rear facing seats impractical for long journeys neun?
We've done loads of long journeys five hours plus and it's never been an issue

YANBU. Theres no study into the long term effects on a population of encouraging people to be so risk averse and controlled. And you are right that a lot of it makes little sense. Certain risks are over-regulated whilst others are ignored. For example, it would make far more sense to put more money into building safer roads, exits and on-ramps, and on educating people on driving skills via tv adverts, other than speeding.

Countless people talk about "health and safety" when in fact the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 applies only to employees and employers at work in the workplace.

I've lived recently in Germany, and it was amazing how much freer society was than here. One instance that affects most people is rented property. My German friends lived in rented flats that were not subject to the checks and licenses that are required here. They couldn't believe it when we told them that to rent our flat in Scotland, we had to have an annual license and inspection from the local authority costing £600, a gas safety certificate, an electrical safety certificate, an energy performance certificate, mains operated smoke alarms in every room with battery back up, intumescent door seals with self closing doors, a fire extinguisher, fire blanket, and many, many other things. My German friends are far more resourceful and certainly don't phone up their landlord when a fuse trips or a light bulb blows!

And of course, in the illogical UK, none of these requirements apply to social housing rented to sometimes vulnerable families with young children!

risk is all relevant - everyone takes risk they feel comfortable with. sometimes nowadays though some people seem to make things like risk a competition and take safety measures to the extreme - fortunately I don't live my life like that - I am a firm believer in letting people do what they want and letting them take the risk rather than some suit in Brussels deciding what is safe for me to do - I have a brain and can think for myself tyvm.

By making things safer all the time people get sucked into a false sense of security - take cars and peoples driving style as an example - new cars have all mod cons like anti-lock brakes, impact zones, seatbelts, airbags etc. etc. so they drive along cutting in and out of traffic at an easy 70mph not really paying attention because they have the heating on full, radio is blaring and theyre singing along people think that because they have all these safety features they are safe because their car is loaded - THEY ARENT SAFE - it all gives them a false sense of security. give them a 30 yr old car with no seatbelts, no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, drum brakes which would only do 70mph on a windy day downhill with the wind behind them - you would find they would soon change their driving style and would be safer drivers - old cars are not unsafe - its the way people drive which is unsafe.