To buy a bog standard car seat...

[Lalalax3]

... for (huge) 20 mth old son? I got a £40 Halfords essentials job and am feeling deeply guilty that we don't have a £300 extended rear facing thing like a lot of DS's contemporaries do.

He doesn't want to rear face - HATES it, and I really couldn't see how a £150 Britax was any safer than the one I chose.

So AIBU? Do I take it back and buy something better? Surely they're all as safe as each other, right?!

Peggy, your data doesn't take into account injuries sustained where there was no fatality. You say yourself the data isn't centrally collected (I wonder if there is an audit somewhere done in house by a trauma centre). How can you teach a conclusion that the risk is 'minute' - or any conclusion at all when you start off by mentioning the lack of relevant data. I don't think your conclusion is valid at all.

I think you are being disingenuous Peggy.

The reason why the risk is "minute" is because thankfully most parents have common sense to use car seats. And certainly not the cheapest one they can find after doing no research..

Peggy - my family are in England.

18 deaths in uk. yoi do know they don't include children who didn't di but are left paralysed ?

In 2014 210 children were 'seriously injured', 5000+ injured. 21 dead.
www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Review/10074

In comparison Sweden had only 9 child deaths from car crashes over a 5 year period. So less than 2 per year on average.

SnuffleGruntSnorter yes that data is available.

there was 319 children under 16 seriously injured and there was 6903 which were slightly injured. which leads me to think the risk is still minute.

here are the definitions around those terms. www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/462818/reported-road-casualties-gb-notes-definitions.pdf

So 319 children had;

Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an “in-patient”, or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.

Sounds great well worth the risk, especially the "injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident"

Artandco that's not an official web site either, its published by a lobbying group...

Chippednailvarnishing yep I know all that and the risk is still absolutely tiny with regards to your child being injured as the result of being a passenger in a car.

Of course the seats aren't the same. Do the proper research.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be taking my child's preference into consideration if it was a case of safety. Most 4 year olds wouldn't wear seat belts if given half a choice and I don't see why RF/FF should be any different.

chippednailvarnishing to put the risk into perspective compared to other activities children do have a read of www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461922/ras30030.xls

it shows Reported child casualties in accidents occurring between 7:30 and 8:59am or between 3:00 and 4:59pm on a school day, by road user type, severity, gender and age, Great Britain, latest available year

it shows for instance that 40 13 yr old pedestrians were killed or seriously injured, that 13 13yr olds who were on their bike were killed or seriously injured but that ZERO children who were 13 yr olds who were passengers in cars were killed or seriously injured.

I know where I would look to limit risk to my children and concentrating on a car seat isn't my priority.

The risk is minute compared to what though? Minute is not an absolute term, what may be acceptable to one parent is not necessarily acceptable to another (thank goodness!) therefore we all have to make our own assessments of what risks are acceptable for each of us. Yes, the absolute risk of being injured in an accident is small relative to the number of journeys the average person probably makes in their childhood - otherwise we'd all be walking around on uneven legs from our fractured growth plates.

The relative risk reduction of a rear facing car seat compared to a forward facing car seat is approximately 5x according to this 2007 study

I haven't prepared my own literature review on the subject, but personally feel that the relative risk reduction is worth £200 or so in my circumstances.

Statistics are only as good as what's collated too.

I'm happy to spend the money we've spent on car seats. Reducing the risks makes me happier and less anxious with children in car.

SnuffleGruntSnorter I'm speaking about absolute risk. so 4 million kids, taking 3 journies a day, passing 40 other vehicles 365 days of the year = 175,200,000,000 journies. 18 children as a percentage of that amount of journies is minute.

Yes, I said that. It's even highligted in bold in my post. My point is that the absolute risk doesn't necessarily negate the relative risk reduction if the financial outlay is considered worth it to the person who is making their own risk assessment.

Andbabymakesthree I guess where I'm coming from is not everyone has a lot of money to spend on car seats - a lot of people will buy to a level they can afford.

I think in making a decision about what to buy its not just about money, its about risk as well. some of the claims made on threads about car seats are appalling and are scaremongering at best. no one should be made to feel inferior because they cannot afford an expensive seat when no data shows expensive = best.

This is horrifying. WHY would you put a child in a rear facing seat? It will give them a headache and make the journey very unpleasant.
Life isnt about completely removing risks. Its about reducing them. rear facing car seats may reduce the impact of a collision, but it will make life until that collision occurs miserable.

But there is plenty of data to show there's a significant relative risk reduction. This, like everything in life is about making an assessment and deciding what is an acceptable cost vs benefit to you.

My 18 month old is very jolly in his rear facing seat confusionis. The seat is quite high so he can see out the back window and the sides and waves at passing dogs and buses.

Believe me we made sacrifices in other areas to be able to afford our seats. We certainly aren't financially well off.

However the amount of people I see bring frivolous on other areas of their life yet transport their children in very cheap seats is astounding.
All fur coats and no knickers.

This, like everything in life is about making an assessment and deciding what is an acceptable cost vs benefit to you.

I absolutely agree however I find it shocking people come onto these threads and say things like if you don't have an rear facing seat your child is going to get internally decapitated and x, y, z is going to happen, then they use unofficial web sites to provide 'facts' and figures from which are all utter nonsense and are someones personal opinion. It is scaremongering and manipulative.

We spent a lot on dd's erf seat, but she throws up every single time.

So we've turned it round. I hate it but it feels like the only solution.

I was horrifically travel sick when I was a kid and still do on occasion now, unless I'm driving.

I agree yabu for not prioritising spend on a car seat but ERF - not always straightforward.

Peggy you seem to be unable to grasp the reason that there relatively few children injured in car accidents is because most people put their children in seats. Therefore if they have a car accident and the child is uninjured, the accident won’t appear in the statistics you keep referring to.

In relation to the price, as many people on this thread have said, you hardly ever hear anything about the main car seat manufactures recalling seats, unlike the cheaper brands.

and Confusionis both my DC were rear facing until they were four, with absolutely no problem.

Confusionis what utter bollocks! That may be the case for some dcs, but do you honestly think all the people with rear facing seats have miserable babies/toddlers in them, clutching their heads in pain etc?
Your name seems very apt.

What about if they said, "if you don't have an extended rear facing car seat your child has a statistically significant increased risk of injury - which may, but will probably not include internal decapitation - in the statistically unlikely event that you have a serious car accident with your child in the car"

Maybe we should do a literature review together and make an unofficial MN factually correct statement?

Chippednailvarnishing nope I do grasp that the reason relatively few children are injured is because they are in seats. this discussion is around the differences between what is currently law, ff seats and rear facing seats and the differences between them.

OP stated she had a seat but was worried that she wasn't in a rear facing seat then people come along and say she should be in erf because of these risks but the existing risk to OPs child who is in her current seat is already very very small which is what I'm showing.

It's not simply a choice between the cheap £40 seat and a £300 one. There are heaps of options in the middle, some FF, some RF. Read Which (£1 trial) and find the best one you can afford.

We have an erf seat. Both children have been/are very happy in them. Until DD moved recently to a HBB she didn't even know she could travel forward facing. She certainly never complained about being RF or headaches