Question about front/ rear facing child seats

DVFlyer wrote: This was prompted by a post in the talkative thread.

I know that babies are supposed to be in rear facing child seats until a certain age or weight....

What is the theory on why facing one way is safer than another?

mckayleesmom replied: Rear-facing is safest for both adults and children, but especially for babies, who would face a greater risk of spinal cord injury in a front-facing carseat during a frontal crash.


Rear-facing car seats spread frontal crash forces over the whole area of a baby's back, head and neck; they also prevent the head from snapping relative to the body in a frontal crash.


Rear-facing carseats may not be quite as effective in a rear end crash, but severe frontal and frontal offset crashes are far more frequent and far more severe than severe rear end crashes.


Rear-facing carseats are NOT a safety risk just because a baby's legs are bent at the knees or because they can touch/kick the vehicle seat.


Rear-facing as long as possible is the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatricians, and can reduce injuries and deaths. Motor Vehicle Crashes are the #1 overall cause of death for children 14 and under.

DVFlyer replied: That was my understanding too...

But for every "severe frontal crash", doesn't there have to be a corresponding "severe rear end crash", since most of the time ( I think ), the front of the car hit the rear of another car?

And, I would guess, in a side impact, seating position wouldn't matter.

luvmykids replied: In a side impact crash seating as far as front or rear doesn't matter, but thats why they say the middle seat is safest for infants (or anyone for that matter, I guess).

I've wondered too about rear facing seats in a rear crash...might have to google it

Danalana replied: Brianne's answers were really good! I have read of babies being internally decapitated because they were turned front-facing before their neck muscles were strong enough. We turned Kade at a little over 20 pounds. The carseat we are getting for Carter is supposed to be good up to 30 pounds, so I will probably rear-face him longer. From what I have read, each step toward a regular seat belt is going down a notch in safety. Our kids will be 5-point harnessed FOREVER!

mckayleesmom replied:
Those were not my answers....I copied and pasted..


I think that your baby is still in danger of the same injuries if you are rear ended...But based on percentages of front end crashes...your more likely to get hit head on then rear ended. Most rear endings happen at a slower speed too.....MOST..not all.

mckayleesmom replied:
Mckaylee and Russell were rear faceing for much longer then 1 year....They were both really short and light...Mckaylee was almost 2.

DVFlyer replied:
I've read that too. So what happens to the child in the rear facing seat of the car that just got rear-ended?

Not arguing... trying to figure out the logic. If you've ever read my posts about locking in child seats, you know I'm a child seat nazi... they have to be TIGHT!

If it was up to me, everyone would wear 5-point harnesses.

DVFlyer replied:
That's what I would think too, but almost every accident I see on the freeway is someone rear-ending someone else (besides the lane changing incidences where position of the seat wouldn't necessarily apply).

So someone has to be the hitter.. and someone has to be the hittee.

Kentuckychick replied: This is the study I read that really changed my opinion (it may be the same one that Brianne had read) http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

It gives a lot of great information including the statistics on crashes which better explains the point of view (frontal/frontal offset = 72% of severe crashes, Side impacts = 24% and Rear offset = 4%) so it really is a HUGE difference.

A&A'smommy replied: I read recently that they now reccamend that children stay RF until AT least the age of 2 or 35lbs so Autumn will be RF for as long as I can keep her that way I almost wish I could turn alyssa back around but that would be nearly impossible considering she has some LOOOOONGGG dancers legs

btw I know that did not answer your question but lol I think it was already answered anyway

DVFlyer replied: I didn't see what those 72% of the frontal crashes are hitting? I guess it's not other cars??

A&A'smommy replied:
hmmm maybe its the front of other cars???

Kentuckychick replied:
I think in many instances it is indeed other cars, but it can also be trees, barriers, etc...

It explains in the article that most frontal crashes involving two cars happen when a car leaves its lane and goes into the other lane of oncoming traffic which leaves little time for either car to slow down and is why they are typically more severe.

redchief replied: It's all about energy and energy dispersion. Forces in motion that are suddenly stopped have to disperse that energy of movement. In a rear end collision there is less energy to disperse than in a frontal crash because there is less motion. Can there still be injuries in a rear end crash? Of course, but front collisions end have much more potential energy and tend to be more severe on the human body.