To think most parents don't know that rearfacing DCs is safer?

[mumaw]

I'm in Facebook groups that specialise in advice for mainly extended rear facing car seats. It's proven that rear facing your child is much, much safer (in fact 500% safer) than front facing.

But I never see anybody RF'ing their child and don't know anybody that does either.

Is it just a case of parents not knowing that its safer?

People get so defensive about this. If you've looked into it and have decided not to rear face for whatever reason then fair enough.

The OP asked whether people were unaware that rear facing was safer and could this be a reason why some people choose to FF. If you have looked into it and made an informed decision then you obviously don't fall into the "unaware" category.

Parenting is one continuous risk assessment but you do need facts to risk assess effectively. More awareness has to be a good thing.

@Rinoachicken

Around 70% of collisions are frontal, 25% are side impact and 5% are rear impact.

From what I've seen rear facing seats are seen as generally safer in a side impact crash than forward facing seats due to "pre impact braking". Essentially prior to the crash it's very likely the driver will brake and in a FF seat the child's head moves forward out of the protection provided by the seat. In a RF seat the head remains within the confines of the seat even if the driver brakes.

Rear impact crashes are less studied as statistically very few children are seriously injured in rear impact crashes but those that have been done suggest rear facing seats are at least as safe as FF seats in a rear impact crash.

rear impacts aren't at all likely to be as hard as front impacts....almost all the serious injuries in car crashes are going to come from front impacts and side impacts.

rear impacts are the major cause of nuisanse whiplash claims though!

*@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland
*
*
OP, what is the solution to this? I have 2 kids. The newborn seat doesn't fit behind DH either.

I'm not able to buy a different fucking car so DFOD.*

I still haven't seen OP explain how to handle a toddler who vomits so much they nearly choke either

What a horribly aggressive attitude. It's not up to the OP to facilitate your driving arrangements, or provide you with the statistics that you are "still waiting for".

She posed a question for discussion, I think telling her to fuck off was a bit uncalled for.

I've an ERF seat and yes it's one of the more expensive ones, but not all ERF seats are more expensive than 18kg seats.
Joie spin - £250
Axkid Move - £225 (and the Britax ones start at £180)

Car seats are the one thing I refuse to scrimp on or buy second hand. I drive a lot of motorway miles so I wouldn't even consider a seat that hadn't passed the Swedish Plus Test.
No one likes to think they will be in an accident but it's not something that's usually in your control and I've seen too many smashes at work to even consider risking ff.
Sorry if that sound preachy but the laws of physics are pretty clear cut. RF is safer, even for adults.

I knew it was safer. But we dont live in the uk and car sests are more expensive, rf are 3x the price and at that time it was just too much for us, especially as we needed one for each car.

Someone would have to slam into you at 60mph while you are stationary, to get the same force of collision as a 30mph head on collision.

Unless someone hits you at stationary going 120mph, there is nothing that compares to a 60mph head on collision, which can happen on a national limit single carriage way just by someone losing concentration (possibly due to a screaming/puking baby in the back).

This is why head on is more common than from behind and why further the injuries from head on collisions are far likely to be worse than for rear collisions.

Yourestanding

She's been pretty aggressive in pushing her point and making those of us who have no option feel guilty by implying there's a solution to every problem.

Seriously? The default assumption is that of course all parents want the safest option for their child. And given the sheer volume of retailers now pushing ERF seats, yes, you can assume we know they are safer.

It's pretty offensive to assume we must simply not have bothered to check what's safest and then badger people who have had to make difficult judgements over this.

@Userzzzzz
What about the Britax Two Way Elite? It's one of the cheapest 25kg seats at £185, and there are sometimes offers on it - the In Car Safety Centre does 10% off from time to time.

Oh and to all the people saying they take car seat safety seriously because they drive a lot, you could have a bigger impact by reducing the amount of motorway miles you do with children in the car.

@yourestandingonmyneck

To be fair to the poster who talked about the OP not coming back and saying how to cope with a sick toddler, I would also like to know the answer (and did also ask a bit further up the thread along with another couple of questions). And this was because the OP did say she could solve any problem any parent had with RF seats ( I can't remember her exact words, but it was insinuating that any problem mentioned was solvable and was just a rather rubbish excuse). So a few of us are quite interested in how she can solve the problem of chronic car sickness....

I understand that in some cases, travel sickness etc, why parents ff but the OP said that so many don't. For those who can why don't they? If they can possibly avoid the risk, cost, space and no sickness allowing, why don't they? Is what I think the OP means. Is it lack of awareness of the risks? Should parents be made aware in some sort of public campaign? I don't think the OP is being smug. I know my responsibility as a childcare provider is to keep the children as safe as I possibly can.

My son hates rear facing and will scream the whole journey because he can't see where he is going. I know rear facing is safer but having a child who won't stop screaming is a dangerous distraction. Having a calm child and being able to focus on the driving makes you less likely to have a crash in the first place.

My eldest is seven, 19.6kg and 116cm tall. We've only just turned him to ff. He has been RF since birth. DS2 is five, 18.7kg and 106cm tall. He'll be remaining RF for the foreseeable. We have two Britax Two Way Elites. The twe is a fantastic seat and fits into almost any car, I haven't come across one I couldn't get them to fit in. The older models RF to 25kg, but I think the newer ones only RF to 18kg, although I could be wrong about that.

Samsmumscataracts
Your 5 year old is on the petite side at 106cm surely. My 2 year old is 98cm tall and is not the tallest we know.

Should parents be made aware in some sort of public campaign?

Half of all car seats (according to Which?'s research) are incorrectly fitted so if any campaign is to be launched I feel it has to be one about that.

RF may be the ideal in most cases, but when half of children are in seats that aren't fitted corrently, then you have the children who aren't fitted to the seat properly (wrong size, straps not done properly, winter coats etc) I can't help but feel we have bigger fish to fry before trying to change minds about RF'ing.

My tall just over 2 year is still rear facing comfortable. We were very lucky that when we went to buy our travel system the sales lady was very open and honest about the quality of the car seat that came with it and spoke us through the whole extended rear facing issue, so we upgraded and will rear face until he reaches the weight/height limit. I do think there needs to be information available because other than that one sales lady no one mentioned car seat safety to us at all.

Mine are too big now but our reasons for not buying ERF seats were,
Because we had four children to fit in the car.
Because we don't get to choose our car, it's a company car and we got a choice of two seven seaters.
Because our kids only travel in a car once a week on average.
Because the seats have to taken out and stored between uses then refitted each time.
Because we needed seats we could use in multiple vehicles.

Yes, but was that rear facing or forward facing?I've just measured 125 cms, that's just over 4 ft, you couldn't put a child if that height into a car seat rear facing

The post is about RF seats here, so of course I'm talking about a rear facing seat, why would I mention a booster in this context? The seat is Axkid Minikid, fits a 125 cm tall child rear facing and fits in a medium sized car.

My 2yo is in a RF joie with a seat belt as my car doesn't have isofix.

Last time we did a long journey he complained about his legs and bum. I've never heard him complain like it before and can only assume it was some sort of pins and needles from being squashed up. I can't move him further away due to the seatbelt.

I know RF is safer. However the risk of an RTA is staggeringly small. Therefore I have Ff'd him to stop the discomfort.

Judge me at your will OP, I'm sure you have made parenting decisions I disagree with.

Ds is 2 years and 9 months. His seat would take him RF until 4 years.
However, he used to take his straps off and scream like a loon until we tried a different seat one day. He liked facing forwards. Journeys are much more pleasant now. He doesn't try to take his arms out of the straps anymore...quite the opposite, he now insists everything's done up properly.

I have a Joie 360 for my 2 and a half year old but he has been forward facing in it for the past year because he just cried and it was very distracting while driving. Also now if he is kicking off he undoes his buckle so need to have him FF to check he is done up.

^People get so defensive about this. If you've looked into it and have decided not to rear face for whatever reason then fair enough.

The OP asked whether people were unaware that rear facing was safer and could this be a reason why some people choose to FF. If you have looked into it and made an informed decision then you obviously don't fall into the "unaware" category.

Parenting is one continuous risk assessment but you do need facts to risk assess effectively. More awareness has to be a good thing.^

This. Well said sunshinegirl.

My DS1 was born in 2008 and I was vaguely aware of the RF seats as most/all (?) of my friends in my native Finland were using them. However I really didn't look into it much and a bought a fairly standard Maxi Cosi seat for him. I repeated this with my DS2. Both were terrible screamers and a mirror helped fuck all. Thank god both are now old enough to travel without the seats and this is one one less parent up-man-ship I have to deal with.

RF car seats being more expensive, I think there is a cynical element of cashing in and exploiting parents fears. After all "you can't put a price on your childs safety"

FWIW, my friends in Finland were very militant about the RF seats, breastfeeding, baby wearing, staying at home minimum 3 years with each baby etc etc but once these kids were 7, they didn't think twice sending them to school by themselves, by taking a tram or bus through Helsinki. Or letting them go to swim in the sea with just mates or spending hours at home alone after the school whilst parents were at work.

However, I am a bit hmm at some of the claims about rearfacing. Like, what does 500% safer even mean? How is that quantified? And I know a lot of the research about the safety of ERF, and comparisons with the UK, came from Scandanvia where there are less cars on the road and there are lots more big Volvo type cars, so you can't compare raw statistics about deaths/injuries. Plus it depends on the type of crash - if you are rear ended at speed then a FF would be safer, it's just that most serious collisions are front collisions. So it's not quite as simple as it's made out to be, and if you have other factors to contend with like the child hates being rear facing etc then I can see that you might want to put them FF.

Thanks for that Propertyofhood. I was about to say the same. I remember seeing a statistic that in Scandinavia head on collisions were more common than say here in the UK. For instance in Finland you are far more at risk to have a head on collision with a moose than you are in a built up Britain. This skews the statistics.