mizzum
04-27-2006, 07:45 AM
Hi,
Someone asked about why they should do extended rf on another board I belong to, and another girl and I replied with the following link:
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx
Well another board memmber has also replied saying the stats quoted in the above link are wrong and laughable.She also says she contacted them about their math previously and they removed the stats she questioned.In fact here is her post:
POST:
"This is the 2nd time I've seen this question posted, and both times they listed this website link. The problem is the facts on the link don't add up. Just this paragraph alone:
"Rear-facing is much, much safer than forward-facing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that rear-facing seats are 71% safer than nothing and FF seats are 54% safer than nothing. This means that a forward-facing child is nearly 60% more likely to die in a crash than a rear facing child. (That's the calculation of how much bigger the risk of death with a forward facing seat is than the risk of death in a rear facing seat [{100% - 54%} divided by {100% - 71%}]. "
has incorrect math. The number should be about 30%, not 60%. (proper way to figure would be to take 54*1.3 to equal 70.2.) Also, the NHTSA site that this references, doesn't say rear-facing and front-facing like the quote does. It lists rates for infants versus toddlers.
Personally when I read incorrect data, especially references that are mis-quoted, on the web, I wonder about the authenticity of the entire website. Before I would advocate this, I would like to see someone actually find ANOTHER source. BTW, the AAP site referenced has 1 sentence about this, and it includes the caveat that the child be short enough to still fit in the car seat at that weight. Nowhere on this website does it talk about height at all. And that's one of the biggest factors on keeping a child's head and neck safe.
Also this website used to have another quote about the g-forces that a child's body pulls when it goes into a crash. The math on that was laughable. I pointed it out, and I see its now gone. Yet another reason I would look for another source before just believing it, despite the video." END.
Does anybody have any other reliable sources I can point her in the direction of? Julie if you read this I am a member of the yahoo list but have forgotten my yahoo ID so I can't post a message asking any of the members of the group! I am sure there is a Paediatrician on that list who is the head of children's trauma at a hospital (St. Paul???) who has posted about the benefits of extended rf?
Thanks everyone.
Lynn
Someone asked about why they should do extended rf on another board I belong to, and another girl and I replied with the following link:
http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx
Well another board memmber has also replied saying the stats quoted in the above link are wrong and laughable.She also says she contacted them about their math previously and they removed the stats she questioned.In fact here is her post:
POST:
"This is the 2nd time I've seen this question posted, and both times they listed this website link. The problem is the facts on the link don't add up. Just this paragraph alone:
"Rear-facing is much, much safer than forward-facing. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) says that rear-facing seats are 71% safer than nothing and FF seats are 54% safer than nothing. This means that a forward-facing child is nearly 60% more likely to die in a crash than a rear facing child. (That's the calculation of how much bigger the risk of death with a forward facing seat is than the risk of death in a rear facing seat [{100% - 54%} divided by {100% - 71%}]. "
has incorrect math. The number should be about 30%, not 60%. (proper way to figure would be to take 54*1.3 to equal 70.2.) Also, the NHTSA site that this references, doesn't say rear-facing and front-facing like the quote does. It lists rates for infants versus toddlers.
Personally when I read incorrect data, especially references that are mis-quoted, on the web, I wonder about the authenticity of the entire website. Before I would advocate this, I would like to see someone actually find ANOTHER source. BTW, the AAP site referenced has 1 sentence about this, and it includes the caveat that the child be short enough to still fit in the car seat at that weight. Nowhere on this website does it talk about height at all. And that's one of the biggest factors on keeping a child's head and neck safe.
Also this website used to have another quote about the g-forces that a child's body pulls when it goes into a crash. The math on that was laughable. I pointed it out, and I see its now gone. Yet another reason I would look for another source before just believing it, despite the video." END.
Does anybody have any other reliable sources I can point her in the direction of? Julie if you read this I am a member of the yahoo list but have forgotten my yahoo ID so I can't post a message asking any of the members of the group! I am sure there is a Paediatrician on that list who is the head of children's trauma at a hospital (St. Paul???) who has posted about the benefits of extended rf?
Thanks everyone.
Lynn