MNHQ Please can we have a campaign for rear-facing car seats for toddlers?

[noid]

There have been quite a few threads on this over the past few years. There has been an article in the BMJ advising that rear-facing car seats are safer for children under 4.

Quote from ROSPA website "Research shows they provide greater protection for children up to 18kg (40lbs), and RoSPA supports calls to make these rearward-facing seats for older toddlers more widely available here in the UK as it would improve parental choice about the safety of their children."

Toddlers' heads are big and heavy and their necks are weak. The forces involved in a crash tend to put a lot of strain on the necks of babies and young-children in forward-facing seats. For children in rear-facing seats, the forces in a crash distribute the strain over a larger area, and thus subject the body to less strain.

The Sunday Times did an article a few months ago on the benefits of rear-facing seats.

Despite this, most retailers in the UK don't sell them. It's not because they don't exist - the most popular brands of car seat in the UK make rear-facing seats, but sell them only in Scandinavia and mainland Europe where the safety message has permeated better. There are a few specialist centres, but mostly parents have to buy over the internet. John Lewis now sells a rear-fitting seat, but only in-store: it's a start, but it could be better.

If MN had a campaign on this, we could persuade the major retailers to change things. Rear-facing seats already exist and are widely available in parts of Europe. There is a big range available in Scandinavia - ones that will fit in small cars as well as big cars. Parents aren't buying them at the moment because most don't know about them, and the ones that do want a rear-facing seat have to travel a long way to buy and fit one.

Anyone else?

noids thanks for that, but as I said earlier I am well aware that these seats are better in forward facing and offset shunts.

The thing to think about is what type of accident are you more likely to be in?

In broad terms most parents of 'big headed, weak necked toddlers' tend to take them in the car on school runs, shopping, local quiet road travel in the main. They tend not to be taken everyday on fast dual carriageways and motorways (there will be exceptions i am sure).

The most common type of accident of all is a rear end shunt. So you are more likely (especially on local roads) to be involved in one of these.

If you think of yourself as a careful driver (who doesn't) then most people assume they will not run into the back of other people but will be slammed up the back by someone else.

So careful toddler carrying local drivers are more likely to have an accident with their child in the car by being hit from behind.

If you are hit from behind a forward facing seat is better for you.

Then shouldn't we have newborns in ffing seats? Genuine q by the way, if ffing is safest for short journeys, most parents are only going to Drs and back, supermarket etc so then ffing would be best for babies in those circs?

Thinking about a car accident DH and I were in pre-DCs. DH was waiting, stationary, at a roundabout to go onto the M23 when a car plowed into the back of us (DH had a Ford Granada Ghia - massive boat of a car so not easy to miss). I got minor whiplash as I was flung forward not backwards yet it was a rear on shunt.

How can that be if what you say is true that 'a child in a car that is hit from behind is pushed backwards into the backrest of a forward facing seat'

Wouldn't that only happen if you were reversing at the time as surely the force of the impact would carry you forward not backward?

Or do I need to have a lie down in dark room with a cold flannel on my forehead?

Flannel. forehead, now
A child in the back, is pushed forward into whatever is in front of them ie, the front seats in a rear shunt or a head on collision.

That's what I thought scurryfunge, but JBellingham keeps insisting on different.

Seems to stand to reason. It's like playing marbles: moving marble hits stationary marble, stationary marble doesn't move backwards it moves in the direction the moving marble was before it hit.

Or have I been playing marbles/pool/tennis in a different universe to the one everyone else inhabits: where when you hit something away from you it goes towards you instead?

I see it that there are always going to be several impacts from where ever you hit as you bounce back and to in a collision (and then your brain bounces back and to all over again). I can see that a rear facing seat will help with head on collision in terms of distributing the initial impact but then what about subsequent impacts? Do they make a difference?
I am not very good at Physics and have probably missed the point but I see it as a question of minimising the risk of one type of injury and weighing that up against other injuries and what is more likely.

When you are hit from behind the car jerks forward quickly, which pushes you and especially your big fat wobbly head into the seat behind you. Hence compulsory head rests on car seats nowadays.

Now assuming you are not sat in a huge roller-skate on an ice rink, you car then comes to rest and you carry on forward until something stops you ( seatbelt). The initial jolt where your head stays still while the car tries to move forward, bending your neck so your big fat head is thrown backwards is what usually causes whiplash. Then your head flops forward as you decelerate.

Think about if your car suddenly leapt forward. Which way are you pushed?

Truthsweet for the record if you hit a snooker ball without other forces such as spin and drag, into another ball the first ball stops and the second continues at the speed of the original. Other forces affect in reality but if you did it in test conditions this is what happens. It is called conservation of momentum and is one of the fundamentals in applied physics.

Who are you calling fat head?

Flannel - I need my flannel.

Though no need to be rude about my 'big fat wobbly head'. I have a small head thank you very much (about the only part of me that is) as I am am ably demonstrating by my tenuous grasp of basic physics.

I knew I shouldn't have posted with out DH standing by to correct me. He's the brains of the family (I bet you can't guess).

JBellingham Although many crashes in the UK are 'shunts', the crashes that cause the most damage (to people/children) are frontal collisions or off side collisions. Incidentally, the biggest injury from shunts in forward facing passengers is whiplash, there are no reported cases of this happening to children in rear-facing seats. As TruthSweet rightly said, the child rides up, then back down with the seat so in a rear shunt when the child is in a rear facing seat, their head isn't thrown forward as with a frontal collision.

In terms of child safety they are 5 times safer being rear-facing...that's why babies have to be rear-facing. "In a forward facing seat the neck is subjected to a force equivalent to 300-320kg, while in a rear facing seat, the force on the neck is equivalent to 50kg." (Source - www.rearfacing.co.uk)

It is a poor show from our government that the recommendation is to turn forward at 20lbs and is putting children's lives at risk for no reason, although this is slowly changing to keeping the child rear-facing untill the maximum weight and height capacity of the seat.

I fully support rear-facing seats, not only from a personal point of view but also a professional point of view, as I advise and fit child seats for a living.

And there's no need to be rude to TruthSweet this is a fantastic cause - it's about getting a choice of seats in large stores, both forward and rearward facing for parents who give a damn about their child's safety.

also, when seats are crash tested to the EU regulations the forces the childs body and internal organs are subjected to is not measured. Despite the fact that there is a dummy that will measure and record this information. If these factors were tested there would be quite a few forward facing seats dragged off the shelves overnight for being unsafe.

I was nor being rude to TS and I don't think anyone except you think I was. And yet again I am not disputing they are safer in more type of crashes.

What is the difference between driving at 30 mph into a tree with a ffing seat and reversing at 30mph into a tree with a rear facing seat? Your conclusion that in a rear end shunt ffacing seats are worse than rear facing makes no sense.

Any way this isn't a debate snout RF / ff

Mumsnet hq what does thee recon?

How do you have a toddler in a rear facing seat for an eight hour car journey?

Norman I guess you strap them in, give them plenty of loo breaks, things to play with and occasional snacks.

That's what I did for my eldest two when we travelled up to Scotland and they were forward facing.

Norman, am - how do you have a toddler in a FF seat for an 8 hour car journey?

RF is the same, but err, the other way around...

(drove to Scotland last year. dd in her HBB, so FF. dd2 in RF seat. dd2 more comfortable overall - better support for legs etc, easier ot fall asleep - we drove overnight)

But surely it is uncomfortable? To have legs crossed, looking at the back seat? Mine wouldn't tolerate it for more than an hour, maybe.

But they don't have their legs crossed . Unless they want to have their legs crossed. And they can look out of the window. Looking out of the window backwards still works. And they can play with toys.

I'm bot being flippant - i want to know- we drive to and from Scotland 2-3 times a year. How much room for legs is there? Can they see out the window? Doesn't it make them feel sick?

And enough of the I am asking a question.

Sorry x-posted

But forget it.

I honestly think dd2 was more comfortable than dd1 (I know dd1 is in a different type of seat, but still, the principle is the same)

dd1 had her legs dangling for thehwole journey. no foot support - must have been quite uncomfortable on eg her thighs, at the dge of the seat. less easy to cross legs/make herself more comfortable - the options just are not htere for her.

dd2 meanwhile, could cross legs, hang them over the sides if she wanted to, she could then still stretch out too - due to the seat we have/how it fits etc. nicely supported all down her thighs, and most of her calves - ankles crossed like a lady

we can also recline her seat that bit more - nicer position to sit in, far more comfortable. whereas dd1 is upright, and that's it. no respite form it.

as for tolerating it - well neither of mine, by age 4 had known ny different. woudl you say the same of eg a 10 month old in a group 0+ seat?

I believe very strongly that they are safer, but ds refuses to travel backwards. He just screams and screams for hours. Not good on long journeys. And yes we have tried toys, music, travelling at night. He just hates it.

Mine are 4 and six and still rf. They don't seem to get sick-at least DD2 is possibly slightly car sick but its hard to tell if she is just fed up at being in the car,and I was and still am hideously car sick so she could just not be a great traveller.They never complain about leg room,even though dd1 is nearly at the point of being too tall for her seat (she is very light). I think they have more of a view than a child ff,we have an estate car and they can see clearly out of the back and the sides of the car,rather than just seeing my head.But all that is immaterial to me, the safety is the only issue.

They can see out of the window. They get a bit more of a panorama as they get to see out of the rear windscreen as well as the passenger window. No evidence that car sickness worse in rf seat.

Disadvantage is that you can't turn round, fix them with the gimlet stare and tell them if they make that noise again you will leave them by the side of the M1, but you can get mirrors to help with this :o

Trains have seats facing both ways, so 50% of train travellers clearly have no problem with it. I don't think it's an issue :) I used to love sitting in the RF seats in the boot of my Dad's land rover. I actually found it made me feel less travelsick as well.