RF vs. FF again

Scramblersmom · January 2013

Ok I am in a pissy mood and I realize this will probably incite a sh*t storm but I have to admit I was thinking about this just this morning (Oh, and I have had 3 glasses of wine).

Ok, you are traveling down a highway in Idaho...you are way more likely to be in a front end collision at a high rate of speed thus putting your kid at risk for internal decapitation, etc. So, if your kid is rear facing he would of course be safest.

So now you are traveling in a city where you are more likely to be in a rear end collision. The laws of physics follow that your kid would be in the exact same situation if he was RF in a rear end collision as he would be if he was FF in a front end collision.If he was FF in a rear end collision he would be pushed into the car seat and not jerked forward.

So, is the AAP recs based on a thought process regarding someone living in Idaho or someone living in say Los Angeles? Would it potentially be safest to have your kid FF based on the likelihood of the type of collision you would be in? Look at the videos...in the scary ones they are all front end collisions. If I lived in the Bay Area and was traveling on I-80 my likelihood of being in a front end collision is damn near zero.

Any thoughts, comments, etc.?

blu-eyedwife · January 2013

I'll preface this by saying my knowledge of physics is really weak. I only passed my AP Physics class because of group work.

BUT, my recollection is that "objects in motion tend to stay in motion" meaning in the direction that they're moving. So in a front end collision, the car is pushed back and bodies move forward. In a rear end collision, both car and bodies are pushed forward. Creating a different dynamic.

Am I totally off base?

Scramblersmom · January 2013

blu-eyedwife:
I'll preface this by saying my knowledge of physics is really weak. I only passed my AP Physics class because of group work.BUT, my recollection is that "objects in motion tend to stay in motion" meaning in the direction that they're moving. So in a front end collision, the car is pushed back and bodies move forward. In a rear end collision, both car and bodies are pushed forward. Creating a different dynamic.Am I totally off base?

You are correct in that if you were rear ended the car would be pushed forward but a RF child would be pushed forward towards the back seat an not pushed into their car seat. If the child was FF in a rear end collision they would be pushed into their car seat.

i am really not trying to incite a riot but it was just something I was thinking about this morning. Just for the record my son is still RF but on the other hand I live in Idaho where I am more likely to be in a front end collision.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

It's more likely that rear-end collisions happen at a lower speed than front-end collisions.

RFing is safer because serious accidents are more likely to be head-on.

VeilSdeGTO · January 2013

Due to the laws of physics, it is safer to have a child RF in a front-end crash since their momentum would keep them moving toward the front of the car (back of the carseat).

For a rear-end accident, the momentum would cause the child to be pushed toward the back of the car. If the child is RF, then that child would not be pushed toward the back of the carseat.

Your thinking that they would be "safer" in a FF carseat is somewhat correct based on the physics.

However, I think the AAP's thinking is that the force of a front-end crash is much greater than one of a rear-end crash. Therefore, it would still be better to have the child RF since the risk of internal decapitation when rear-ended is less due to the amount of force involved in a rear-end crash.

Without getting into more in depth physics, that is kind of the gist of it.

Side note: I am a physics teacher and one of my projects this year is for my students to research carseat laws and present the physics of RF vs FF in both front-end and rear-end accidents.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

overture:
It's more likely that rear-end collisions happen at a lower speed than front-end collisions.
RFing is safer because serious accidents are more likely to be head-on.

That is so true but I can't help to remember my brother getting rear ended by a driver going 60 mph. My brother was stopped at a stoplight and this guy just didn't even see him and just slammed right into him. His car was totaled. This was in the Bay Area so again I think the likelihood in that environment of being in a front end collision is very low.

I was being tailgated this morning really bad. The road was icy and I just kept thinking that if I had to slam on the breaks for some reason that my son would be screwed because he would be pulled towards the back seat and not pushed into his seat. However, on most days I am more likely to be in a front end collision since most of our roads are 2 lane highways without any dividers out here.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

VeilSdeGTO:
Due to the laws of physics, it is safer to have a child RF in a front-end crash since their momentum would keep them moving toward the front of the car (back of the carseat).
For a rear-end accident, the momentum would cause the child to be pushed toward the back of the car. If the child is RF, then that child would not be pushed toward the back of the carseat.
Your thinking that they would be "safer" in a FF carseat is somewhat correct based on the physics.
However, I think the AAP's thinking is that the force of a front-end crash is much greater than one of a rear-end crash. Therefore, it would still be better to have the child RF since the risk of internal decapitation when rear-ended is less due to the amount of force involved in a rear-end crash.
Without getting into more in depth physics, that is kind of the gist of it.
Side note: I am a physics teacher and one of my projects this year is for my students to research carseat laws and present the physics of RF vs FF in both front-end and rear-end accidents.

That is very cool that you are having your students research this! I can not argue against your argument that for the most part rear end collisions probably occur at lower speeds than front end collisions most of the time.

kagl08 · January 2013

I think, and please don't quote me, the AAP's recommendation is based on the fact that people are more likely to get into a front end or side end collision rather than a rear end. I believe the likelihood of a side or front end collision is higher than that of a rear end collision, making extended RFing safer for the majority of crashes.

I could be wrong, but I swear I read this.

thetheisens · January 2013

You don't think they took those things into consideration when making their recommendation? Yes, there are probably times when ff would be safer, but they would base the recommendation on what would be safest the majority of the time. Just like sometimes in rare cases a driver or passenger in a car accident isn't wearing a seat belt and gets thrown from the car and the car starts on fire, so then they were better off not wearing their seat belt. The majority of the time you are better off wearing your seat belt.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

thetheisens:
You don't think they took those things into consideration when making their recommendation? Yes, there are probably times when ff would be safer, but they would base the recommendation on what would be safest the majority of the time. Just like sometimes in rare cases a driver or passenger in a car accident isn't wearing a seat belt and gets thrown from the car and the car starts on fire, so then they were better off not wearing their seat belt. The majority of the time you are better off wearing your seat belt.

I am not confident that they take this into consideration. If not, it wouldn't be the first time that they have made recs based on BS (like withholding allergenic foods which they have now retracted just this last year). I have not seen the the basis for their decisions except for scary videos everyone passes around. I have seen that 5,000 kids die in auto accidents every year...period. Given that, the odds any way are somewhat slim given how many kids there are in the US.

Again, i am just throwing this out there for discussion since it is something that was on my mind earlier today.

btsrc5 · January 2013

smit5009:
overture:

It's more likely that rear-end collisions happen at a lower speed than front-end collisions.

RFing is safer because serious accidents are more likely to be head-on.

That is so true but I can't help to remember my brother getting rear ended by a driver going 60 mph. My brother was stopped at a stoplight and this guy just didn't even see him and just slammed right into him. His car was totaled. This was in the Bay Area so again I think the likelihood in that environment of being in a front end collision is very low.

I was being tailgated this morning really bad. The road was icy and I just kept thinking that if I had to slam on the breaks for some reason that my son would be screwed because he would be pulled towards the back seat and not pushed into his seat. However, on most days I am more likely to be in a front end collision since most of our roads are 2 lane highways without any dividers out here.

PPs are correct. Rear end collisions in general are much less severe than front end collisions (like front to front end of people traveling in opposite directions vs front end to rear end of a rear ender).

Smit, I don't understand your logic of being more likely to have a front end vs rear end collision. If two people are involved in a rear end collision, then one vehicle is actually having a front end impact and one vehicle is having a rear end impact. The Bay area is high traffic, right? There are plenty of front end collisions when people accidently run red lights, lose control and hit concrete medians on high ways, etc.

pennysuedog · January 2013

I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.

btsrc5 · January 2013

pennysuedog:
I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.

is there a question as to how the recommendation came about? I mean, haven't we all seen the videos, read the research, looked at the crash tests?

(not trying to be snarky)

Scramblersmom · January 2013

pennysuedog:
I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.

Yeah I am just curious what kind of data they used to come up with the rec. I am not against RF in any way.

On the highway out here if I am driving and a car is coming at me and we crash it will be a very severe crash and my kid would definitely be safer RF. However, in my brother's situation, the impact would be less because he was stopped but the kid would still be violently pushed forward into the back seat if the kid was RF.

When I drove in the Bay Area my odds of getting in a front end collision were low unless I wasn't paying attention and slammed into someone (which i have never done BTW). I have been stopped when someone rear ended me at least 5 times over the 24 years I have been driving and some of those impacts have been pretty hard.

Again this was just something going through my mind yesterday when some beotch was tailgating me and messing with her makeup.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

btsrc5:
pennysuedog:
I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.
is there a question as to how the recommendation came about? I mean, haven't we all seen the videos, read the research, looked at the crash tests?
(not trying to be snarky)

The crash test is a car slamming into a cement wall. I am in no way saying the video is BS; it clearly shows the danger to a FF child. However, one video doesn't make for statistical data to base a rec on and I have not see the actual research anywhere. If anyone knows where the actual research data is that they used it would be interesting to read.

My point is that I have never been in a front end collision (thankfully) but I have been in many rear end collisions so given that, my odds were that I would be in a rear end collision (until I moved out here where front end collisions on the highway happen often).

I don't think anyone has made an invalid point but I also think my point still stands as well.

pennysuedog · January 2013

I'm not just talking about this. I am saying in life I try to question everything.

cantalopes24 · January 2013

btsrc5:
pennysuedog:
I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.

is there a question as to how the recommendation came about? I mean, haven't we all seen the videos, read the research, looked at the crash tests?

(not trying to be snarky)

Right but there are things all that time that are the newest recommendation and show that old recommendations aren't necessarily the best choice. I don't see why it's wrong to question things and inform yourself to make the best decision for your family.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

cantalopes24:
btsrc5:
pennysuedog:
I also think that RF is the safest, but I think it is good to question how the recommendation came to be and not just nod along.
is there a question as to how the recommendation came about? I mean, haven't we all seen the videos, read the research, looked at the crash tests?
(not trying to be snarky)
Right but there are things all that time that are the newest recommendation and show that old recommendations aren't necessarily the best choice. I don't see why it's wrong to question things and inform yourself to make the best decision for your family.

My whole career is based on wondering, thinking, questioning, investigating, studying data, and sometimes refuting (though here I am just wondering). It is what I was trained to do so I tend to do that with a lot of things even if it is unpopular.

I will say that if DS ever rides in a car that my Mom is driving that he will have to stay RF indefinitely; even if he is 20. That woman crashes into everything! Wink

VeilSdeGTO · January 2013

I don't think Smit is saying she is going to FF her kid because she hasn't been in a front-end collision. I think she is just wondering what the stats are for rear-end collisions on FF vs RF since based on the physics, it would make more sense to be FF if you were ever rear-ended.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

VeilSdeGTO:
I don't think Smit is saying she is going to FF her kid because she hasn't been in a front-end collision. I think she is just wondering what the stats are for rear-end collisions on FF vs RF since based on the physics, it would make more sense to be FF if you were ever rear-ended.

Exactly! I am just wondering and very curious! LisaJay, I am so sorry you were in such a horrible accident and I am glad you were OK. I am with you; I am paranoid either way! I used to have an attitude more like "I dare you to hit me you SOB!" and now I am terrified of getting into any accident (sometimes even driving)especially when DS is in the car. Given this, my overactive mind is considering every possibility! Ick!

blu-eyedwife · January 2013

smit5009:
VeilSdeGTO:
I don't think Smit is saying she is going to FF her kid because she hasn't been in a front-end collision. I think she is just wondering what the stats are for rear-end collisions on FF vs RF since based on the physics, it would make more sense to be FF if you were ever rear-ended.
Exactly! I am just wondering and very curious! LisaJay, I am so sorry you were in such a horrible accident and I am glad you were OK. I am with you; I am paranoid either way! I used to have an attitude more like "I dare you to hit me you SOB!" and now I am terrified of getting into any accident (sometimes even driving)especially when DS is in the car. Given this, my overactive mind is considering every possibility!

Maybe this will give you some more peace of mind - I found them last night (obviously anecdotal):

https://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html

https://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rear-facing-safer-when-youre-rear.html

VeilSdeGTO · January 2013

blu-eyedwife:
smit5009:
VeilSdeGTO:
I don't think Smit is saying she is going to FF her kid because she hasn't been in a front-end collision. I think she is just wondering what the stats are for rear-end collisions on FF vs RF since based on the physics, it would make more sense to be FF if you were ever rear-ended.
Exactly! I am just wondering and very curious! LisaJay, I am so sorry you were in such a horrible accident and I am glad you were OK. I am with you; I am paranoid either way! I used to have an attitude more like "I dare you to hit me you SOB!" and now I am terrified of getting into any accident (sometimes even driving)especially when DS is in the car. Given this, my overactive mind is considering every possibility!

Maybe this will give you some more peace of mind - I found them last night (obviously anecdotal):
https://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html
https://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rear-facing-safer-when-youre-rear.html

I'm glad they are ok and again, nobody is saying that RF is not safe when rear-ended. Just wondering if they would have been injured more/less if they were FF.

For instance, in the second link, would the little boy who ended up with stitches walked away with no stitches? I think that is the statistic that has been difficult to find.

Most of us are going to do extended RF. It is interesting that when it comes to rear-end crashes with children FF, the statistics are not as easily accessible/available.

blu-eyedwife · January 2013

VeilSdeGTO:
I'm glad they are ok and again, nobody is saying that RF is not safe when rear-ended. Just wondering if they would have been injured more/less if they were FF.
For instance, in the second link, would the little boy who ended up with stitches walked away with no stitches? I think that is the statistic that has been difficult to find.
Most of us are going to do extended RF. It is interesting that when it comes to rear-end crashes with children FF, the statistics are not as easily accessible/available.

Oh yeah - I certainly haven't taken this thread as anyone arguing against ERF. I just posted that in response to Smit worrying about what would happen if she was rear-ended. In other words, no guarantee, but in these instances, where people were rear-ended with RF children, everyone was virtually unscathed.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

blu-eyedwife:
smit5009:
VeilSdeGTO:
I don't think Smit is saying she is going to FF her kid because she hasn't been in a front-end collision. I think she is just wondering what the stats are for rear-end collisions on FF vs RF since based on the physics, it would make more sense to be FF if you were ever rear-ended.
Exactly! I am just wondering and very curious! LisaJay, I am so sorry you were in such a horrible accident and I am glad you were OK. I am with you; I am paranoid either way! I used to have an attitude more like "I dare you to hit me you SOB!" and now I am terrified of getting into any accident (sometimes even driving)especially when DS is in the car. Given this, my overactive mind is considering every possibility!

Maybe this will give you some more peace of mind - I found them last night (obviously anecdotal):
https://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html
https://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rear-facing-safer-when-youre-rear.html

I have been looking for data on the internet this morning and can't find anything so far. I did see that the mortality rate for all crashes in the US is 0.6%. Blu, I will take the anecdotal evidence along with the low fatality rate I found and try to stop worrying! Smile

Mrs. Mo · January 2013

VeilSdeGTO:

Due to the laws of physics, it is safer to have a child RF in a front-end crash since their momentum would keep them moving toward the front of the car (back of the carseat).

For a rear-end accident, the momentum would cause the child to be pushed toward the back of the car. If the child is RF, then that child would not be pushed toward the back of the carseat.

Your thinking that they would be "safer" in a FF carseat is somewhat correct based on the physics.

However, I think the AAP's thinking is that the force of a front-end crash is much greater than one of a rear-end crash. Therefore, it would still be better to have the child RF since the risk of internal decapitation when rear-ended is less due to the amount of force involved in a rear-end crash.

Without getting into more in depth physics, that is kind of the gist of it.

Side note: I am a physics teacher and one of my projects this year is for my students to research carseat laws and present the physics of RF vs FF in both front-end and rear-end accidents.

I totally agree with this (coming from a person who majored in physics for 2.5 years before deciding I wanted to change to stupid accounting).

blu-eyedwife · January 2013

Seriously you physics people are amazing smarties. I can't even draw a vector.

Mrs. Mo · January 2013

blu-eyedwife:
Seriously you physics people are amazing smarties. I can't even draw a vector.

Scramblersmom · January 2013

Mrs. Mo:
blu-eyedwife:
Seriously you physics people are amazing smarties. I can't even draw a vector.

Bahaha! Love it!

blu-eyedwife · January 2013

Mrs. Mo:
blu-eyedwife:
Seriously you physics people are amazing smarties. I can't even draw a vector.

I seriously keep staring at this and getting distracted by the leash. Is that dog on a chain? And how can you add arrows?

Although, to be fair, math is not my strong suit. Unless we're talking about balancing chemical equations.

VeilSdeGTO · January 2013

blu-eyedwife:
Mrs. Mo:
blu-eyedwife:
Seriously you physics people are amazing smarties. I can't even draw a vector.

I seriously keep staring at this and getting distracted by the leash. Is that dog on a chain? And how can you add arrows?
Although, to be fair, math is not my strong suit. Unless we're talking about balancing chemical equations.

One of my favorite things to do!! I teach chemistry as well as physics. (and biology)

Want a personalized experience?

RF vs. FF again

Re: RF vs. FF again

Choose Another Board

Search Boards