WATCH: Oh, Kmart!
Pamela Poole: Talk About a Choking Hazard! What I Never Expected to…
Cruising for a Bruising: Car Seat Recommendations Too Strict?
Filed under: Research Reveals: Toddlers & Preschoolers, Research Reveals: Big Kids
Forget the first birthday car seat switcheroo.
Infants and toddlers riding in forward-facing car seats are five times more likely to be injured in crashes than those in rear-facing ones. Those facing front are more than 75 percent more likely to suffer fatal and severe injuries. More than 1,500 children under age 16 die in auto accidents each year.
No wonder the American Academy of Pediatrics' new car seat policy recommends children ride backwards at least until their second birthdays. Before you unlatch anything, though, let's look at those car-seat crash stats.
They come from a 2007 study analyzing auto accidents registered in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database between 1988 and 2003. Researchers drew a sample of 870 children, all younger than age 2, 40 percent of whom rode forwards during the collisions, 60 percent backwards.
True, the youngsters stuck looking out back fared better overall, but here's what the media neglected to mention -- most children weren't hurt at all.
That's right -- 90 percent facing forwards and 85% backwards sustained not so much as a scratch. Including those with only minor boo-boos (scratches, mild bruises), 99.5 percent and 98.9 percent, respectively, came out unscathed. That's a whopping .6 percent difference.
Let me rephrase -- only .5 percent of the backward-facing and 1.1 percent of the forward-facing kiddies suffered more than truly mild injuries. Thus serious injuries were extremely rare.
Critical injuries occurred in .16 percent of rear-facing versus and .02 percent of forward-facing children. Fatal injuries in .02 percent and .00 percent. Although none of the children facing the back died, their fatality risk was lower by a mere .02 percent.
What's more, those car accidents happened over a 15-year span, some over two decades ago. Fatal crashes for children under 16 have decreased 45 percent since 1997, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Surely today's car seats are safer than those manufactured during Reagonomics. But the researchers didn't account for differences in car seats, be it manufacturing year, harness type or weight-limit. Nor did they consider how a child's weight, height or precise age (in months) impacted injuries -- nor the possibility that safety-conscious parents might keep kiddies backwards longer and also drive more cautiously.
So, that's how we arrived at "significant" risks that -- outside of academia and the media -- might not mean much, particularly for families with car seats, cars or genetics that don't readily accommodate rear-facing 1-year olds.
A less than 1 percent risk might not be enough to justify policy changes or a new car seat. Apparently, however, it is enough to rebuke people who pooh-pooh the new policy (check out the nastiness over at The New York Times).
Here's what should make us worry: one in five kids isn't in a car seat at all. The researchers looking into the national accident data had to disqualify over 20 percent of the infants and toddlers from the study because they didn't ride out the crash in any car seat -- not a rear-facing, forward-facing, three-point or five-point harnessed, latched, convertible or FAA-approved one.
Infants and toddlers riding in forward-facing car seats are five times more likely to be injured in crashes than those in rear-facing ones. Those facing front are more than 75 percent more likely to suffer fatal and severe injuries. More than 1,500 children under age 16 die in auto accidents each year.
No wonder the American Academy of Pediatrics' new car seat policy recommends children ride backwards at least until their second birthdays. Before you unlatch anything, though, let's look at those car-seat crash stats.
They come from a 2007 study analyzing auto accidents registered in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration database between 1988 and 2003. Researchers drew a sample of 870 children, all younger than age 2, 40 percent of whom rode forwards during the collisions, 60 percent backwards.
True, the youngsters stuck looking out back fared better overall, but here's what the media neglected to mention -- most children weren't hurt at all.
That's right -- 90 percent facing forwards and 85% backwards sustained not so much as a scratch. Including those with only minor boo-boos (scratches, mild bruises), 99.5 percent and 98.9 percent, respectively, came out unscathed. That's a whopping .6 percent difference.
Let me rephrase -- only .5 percent of the backward-facing and 1.1 percent of the forward-facing kiddies suffered more than truly mild injuries. Thus serious injuries were extremely rare.
Critical injuries occurred in .16 percent of rear-facing versus and .02 percent of forward-facing children. Fatal injuries in .02 percent and .00 percent. Although none of the children facing the back died, their fatality risk was lower by a mere .02 percent.
What's more, those car accidents happened over a 15-year span, some over two decades ago. Fatal crashes for children under 16 have decreased 45 percent since 1997, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Surely today's car seats are safer than those manufactured during Reagonomics. But the researchers didn't account for differences in car seats, be it manufacturing year, harness type or weight-limit. Nor did they consider how a child's weight, height or precise age (in months) impacted injuries -- nor the possibility that safety-conscious parents might keep kiddies backwards longer and also drive more cautiously.
So, that's how we arrived at "significant" risks that -- outside of academia and the media -- might not mean much, particularly for families with car seats, cars or genetics that don't readily accommodate rear-facing 1-year olds.
A less than 1 percent risk might not be enough to justify policy changes or a new car seat. Apparently, however, it is enough to rebuke people who pooh-pooh the new policy (check out the nastiness over at The New York Times).
Here's what should make us worry: one in five kids isn't in a car seat at all. The researchers looking into the national accident data had to disqualify over 20 percent of the infants and toddlers from the study because they didn't ride out the crash in any car seat -- not a rear-facing, forward-facing, three-point or five-point harnessed, latched, convertible or FAA-approved one.
Your<span>Voice</span>
Ask Us Anything About Parenting
Recently Asked
- (department of defense)? hey can you build me a super duper all protector? yea what you want on it $$$$$
- Copyright royaly board understanding building a radio or tv (song sound good got your own radio)?
- While attempting to explain consider who your explaining to. building a government may seem like gilligan's island to a person that can't
TheTalkies:RelatedVideos
-
Buying and Installing Car Seat for Children
Cars.com's Dave Thomas and Jennifer Newman explain the basics of how to use car seats properly.
-
How to Install a Newborn Child Car Seat
A video tutorial on How To Install A Newborn Child Car Seat that will improve your child safety seats skills. Learn how to get good at child safety seats from Videojug's hand-picked industry leaders.
-
How to Be Aware of UK Child Car Seat Rules
Looking for an advice video on How To Be Aware Of UK Child Car Seat Rules? This extremely helpful instructional video explains accurately how it's done, and will help you get good at child safety seats. Enjoy this informative video from the world's most comprehensive library of free factual video content online.
-
Illegal Attempts to Cross Border Disguised as Car Seat
We give this man props for creativity, but a big thumbs down for delivery. "Fox & Friends" reports that with the help of two friends, an illegal immigrant tried to disguise himself by hiding inside the seat of a car. Police report the men removed foam from the seat. WJBK says after the immigrant slipped into the car seat frame, he was covered up with the cloth, and a passenger sat on top of him. The Telegraph reports even the police were impressed with the quote "novel" attempt to fool them.
SitesWeLove
- Site Map
- |
- Staff
- |
- Terms of Service
- |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Trademarks
- |
- Advertise With Us
- |
- About Our Ads
- |
- AOL Downloads
- |
- Contact Us
- |
© Copyright 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Aol Family
ReaderComments (Page 1 of 1)
4-07-2011 @ 12:19PM
Jessica said...By the time my girls were 14 months and 18 months they were kissing their knee caps sitting in a backwards facing car seats. They were too long and in pain. It is a hard choice to make sometimes. I agree that we need car seat laws that all children need to ride in them and general weight rules but if a younger child is screaming in discomfort that it is time to make the turn to the front. I was terrified my daughters would get hurt sitting forward before they were two-years-old but it was something my husband and I labored at and ultimately turned their seats around. We are safe drivers and have never been in a car accident, at the age of 3 and 6 the girls are doing wonderfully.
Reply
6-28-2011 @ 3:01PM
Carrie said...And yet the fact remains that in Sweden with stricter rear-facing policies that go to 4 years old (and seats made to accommodate the longer legged children) the fatality rate in a car accident (read as 'you don't mean for it to happen, you're not the one who should have been more careful') has gone down to nearly 0. I've never caused a car accident. I've been in 5 since I started driving, all caused by others hitting me (side and rear almost always) and because of my driving I've actually decreased the injuries in them, but they still happened and the fact that I'm a very careful and cautious driver didn't stop them from happening. That's what an accident IS. Just because the chance of you dying is pretty low for most people doesn't mean you don't take out insurance, the unexpected happens, there's nothing wrong with planning for the worst. I guarantee most parents in accidents with their kids were driving carefully.
See, they're not basing it just on research done 20 years ago. They're basing it on comparing the number of children hurt or dead from car accidents in the US vs Sweden (where the law is 4 for rear-facing.) They're also basing it on crash tests where they see what happens.
As far as leg room for the little ones, take that up with the companies and look at the higher weigh rear-facing car seats that are sold in other countries (4-6 years old still rear-facing), they make room for their legs and feet. Recommendations like the one from AAP encourage the manufacturers to make those options more available in the US. As far as genetics, I don't know of any child who's head was more proportional at 1 as compared to another child, their heads are all pretty much watermelons stuck to the top of a small body.
My daughter is not short, she's in the 24% of height for 3 year olds which would put her in the 80% for 2 year olds, yet she doesn't have issue facing rear still. To be perfectly honest, that makes me roll my eyes at parents who's kids couldn't sit rear past 34 inches when my daughter is past that and not having problems yet. While I understand that the biggest group of deaths are children not in a car seat, the next biggest being car seats not installed properly, that doesn't negate the fact that more would be saved facing rear longer. To 2 years is still very conservative, AAP could have interpreted the data to 4 years (when the head actually is proportional and the risks go significantly down.)
Reply
7-13-2011 @ 5:38PM
Angela Tastad said...I agree with Carrie - look at the stats from Sweden. So to quote the article 'only .5 percent of the backward-facing and 1.1 percent of the forward-facing kiddies suffered more than truly mild injuries.' I know as a parent I don't want to take my chances even if it's only .06 difference between the 2. I know MANY children that are still rear facing at 3-4 years old, some even older, with no complaints. The reason a child around 1-1.5 years of age gets upset is because they don't want to be strapped in at all. For the parents that say it's painful for younger ones, how do you know... they can't tell you. The older kids can and I don't know of ANY older kids that are rear facing that complain about it. It's actually MORE comfortable for most. Forward facing they have no where to rest their feet so their feet fall asleep and they get sore legs. The analogy that I like is to think, as an adult, how does it feel when you sit on a stool where you can't touch the floor? That's how a forward facing child is going to feel every time they get in the car. Most forward facing kids will either cross their legs (which is what they would do rear facing too) or put their feet on the seat in front of them (at which point they're at a greater risk of breaking their legs). The major risk of turning a child before they are 2 is internal decapitation. A child's spine isn't developed enough before they're 2 to take that kind of force.
As a CPST (aka car seat tech) I do agree that more children need to be strapped into seats and they need to be used properly. As stated a child is 5x's safer rear facing over forward facing and if you consider that the #1 cause of death in children ages 1-4 is from car crashes, I don't want to take that risk.
Reply
7-13-2011 @ 7:45PM
Christin Hardy said...Thank you Angela! My kids are one of those you referred to who are rear facing longer. They are 5.5yr old, 4yr old, and the youngest is 19mon old. The older two have rode forward facing and always complain when forward facing of legs hurting from dangling or necks hurting from falling asleep. They are constantly begging to get back in their rear facing seats.
Reply