I am always skeptical of statistics. Plus, they make for a good blog when I have nothing that is actually interesting. Many studies that look great in the conclusion (e.g. Doing this is 5 times safer than doing that!) are not quite as compelling when you read the whole thing. Most statistics don’t even apply to me, because I don’t drive impaired or leave my kids unrestrained most of the time, as is the case with over half the children who die in car crashes. Plus, I don’t drive an older sedan with minimal safety features and average crash ratings; I have a fairly new minivan that is probably among the safest vehicles on the road. Few studies take into consideration what happens to kids who are properly restrained in newer vehicles; most just lump them in with the average.
That’s not necessarily so bad, after all, the people we really need to reach are those who don’t restrain their kids at all or don’t do it correctly. For them, there are tons of quotes you can give! Here’s one for those who believe that having a newer vehicle that automatically shuts off the passenger airbag makes it OK for their kids to ride in front. In summary, all children 12 years old and under are safest when properly restrained in the back seat of the vehicle. Children are up to 29 percent safer riding in the back seat versus the front seat, whether the vehicle has an air bag or not.”
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/outreach/safesobr/12qp/airbag.html
Here’s just one quote from a great compilation of child passenger safety statistics, emphasising one of the most harmful things you can do to your child, “One out of four occupant deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years involved a drinking driver. More than two-thirds of these fatally injured children were riding with a drinking driver.”
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm
Here’s another nice compilation of some good talking points, like this one, “Inappropriately restrained children are nearly three and a half times more likely to be seriously injured in a crash than their appropriately restrained counterparts.”
http://www.usa.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540
Here’s a recent study I found interesting, given that I used to be a very big advocate of minivans 5-10 years ago, back when SUVs were mostly truck-based and many of those were rolling death traps. Many current SUVs are quite similar to minivans and have narrowed the gap considerably in terms of safety, but apparently the gap isn’t completely closed, yet. “Results of this study indicate that children seated in minivans during a crash have a significantly lower crude risk of fatal and non-fatal injury than children seated in SUVs. The differences in risk of non-fatal injury are associated with vehicle type even after adjustment for other child and driver characteristics, vehicle model year, and rollover. The increased proportion of SUV crashes involving rollover explained most of the difference in risk of fatal injury for child occupants in minivans versus those in SUVs. “
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/15/1/8
Anyway, if you do find a statistic you like, be sure to understand what it means exactly, what variables were considered and the context of the research that produced it. After a statistic has been passed around from website to website and quoted out of context, it can convey quite a different meaning than what was intended. Even the best of us toss out numbers that really don’t mean what we think they do. That’s because it can be very difficult to differentiate a good statistic from a bad one, especially when the research itself can be flawed or just doesn’t apply.
Well, that’s just mean! I love maps. 😉
It was just an illustration and not related to the content. You can find the original on the NHTSA website somewhere; I’m not even sure what the study was lol. I often use NHTSA graphics since they are in the public domain.
What is the little map up there? Where is the full size version? Or is it just an illustration?
(I clicked all the links, I may have overlooked it, if it was there).
Oh, ok, I gotcha, that makes more sense. Still, counter-intuitive, though. Hmmmm, I wonder how extensively this has been studied elsewhere? Sorry, I am new to this ERF thing, I’ve only been a member here for about five months 🙂 So it seems as though it is agreed that ERF has a benefit, it’s just not clear how much of a benefit it is? Ah how confusing studies can be!
I’m sorry, I phrased that poorly. I should have said that there was a finding that kids under 12 months gained less benefit from rear-facing than did kids 12-24 months. I don’t believe it actually indicated that kids under 12 months were safer FF vs. RF, sorry! Still, it’s a bit counter-intuitive.
Now that’s interesting, that it seemed that younger babies were safer turned ff?!? I kinda took away from the study that there wasn’t much statistical signifigance outside of side-impact crashes? If you get more info, I’d love to know!
that’s very interesting data. The stuff closing that gap had me oggling a hybrid SUV… I think I’m back to just wishing for a hybrid minivan…. I love minivans… they are so easy to drive and provide so much extra room.
That is a very confusing study. I’ve had some correspondence with the author and discovered that for some comparisons, they didn’t have enough data points to indicate anything statistically significant, but rather could only suggest a trend. Another interesting find is that it seems to indicate that younger babies are actually safer when turned front-facing than are older toddlers! When asked about this at a conference, another one of the authors was unable to explain this unintuitive finding. Again, I suspect it was just from having too few data points of kids under 1 year old being front facing.
There is clearly some information in that study showing that rear-facing is safer for kids up to 24 months. Exactly how much safer seems to be subject to some interpretation. I hoped to have Chris Sherwood as a guest at a Car-Seat.Org chat session to discuss this study, but so far it hasn’t worked out.
Very interesting, thank you! How about the statistics for ERF? I read the entire study, and I was confused. It seemed to be saying that statistically ff and rf were the same, except for side impact crashes? I was so confused. I also wondered if the looked at the installation of the seats, the side impact protection of the seat, etc. I know the AAP recommends it, I was just curious about the interpretation of the study itself. Any thoughts?
The minivan one is a big one for me. We get a lot of flack for driving a minivan (1999 Honda Odyssey), but when looking at alternatives in our price range, gas mileage and need for space as our family grows, our other option would have been late 90s SUVs. If we had chosen a 4Runner or Pathfinder, no one would raise an eyebrow, but the risk to our family in case of an accident would have been so much higher.
I’ve really come to the conclusion that if you can’t buy a new car with all the latest bells and whistles, the safest options are minivans, sedans or Subarus that tested well as new cars. The worst options are older SUVs and trucks, but sooooo many people load their families in those vehicles anyway.