Forum menu
For a 16 month old. Airbag turned off.
Would this setup be legal?
Thanks guys.👍
Yes, legal afaik. At any age. It’s just guidance that the back is safer,
Not law.
Certainly used to be - looked into it when I had the chance to buy an MX5.
The airbag off thing is for rearward facing seats. Guidance is it can be on for forward facing, but the seat must be fully to the rear. We also did the mx-5 thing 😁
Yes legal. Airbag should be on and seat all the way back. Consider an impact shield type seat if you can. We’ve used recaro Monza novas with our kids from about 9 months.
Not wanting to preach at you but any reason it needs to be forward facing?
Choice, limitation of vehicle?
It's way way safer for little ones to be rear facing to save their necks from snapping like twigs.
If its an i-size seat:
They must be rear-facing until your child is over 15 months old.
https://www.gov.uk/child-car-seats-the-rules
We used a rear facing for a long while and now my son is almost 3 we are using a Cybex Pallas G with Impact Shield.
Not wanting to preach at you but any reason it needs to be forward facing?
Choice, limitation of vehicle?
It’s way way safer for little ones to be rear facing to save their necks from snapping like twigs.
its marginally safer in certain kinds of accident that are more common. its marginally less safe in other sorts of accident that are less common.
as for why - very few cars have space for a large, rear-facing seat behind anyone who isn't a shortarse.
as for why – very few cars have space for a large, rear-facing seat behind anyone who isn’t a shortarse.
indeed. - we have an axkid minikid - theres nothing mini about it its bigger than a vw up.
Means i cant be a passenger in our car either.
How ever there are plenty smaller rear facing seats if your child is not 2 going on 5 -
ts marginally safer in certain kinds of accident that are more common.
Is that the uk research as other nations will dispute the marginal statement vicariously with their research. It certainly looked more than marginal to me - and logically looking at the dynamics of anything other than a rear impact (generally slower closing speeds anyway) enough that im happy enough to put up with the minor inconvenience in our main car - ie the one that does the vast majority of trips with JNR.
In our second car - that generally only does the nursary run when time or weather constrained forward facing with the old rearward facing seat.
missed the edit - but lets not forget a properly fitted forward facing seat still trumps a poorly fitted rear facing seat.
For a 16 month old. Airbag turned off.
Would this setup be legal?
It could be legal if you can follow what the car manual says (and obviously what the seat manual says too). The airbag being on or off varies car to car for forward facing seats. For rear facing, the airbag has to be off.
Unfortunately being legal doesn't always mean it's the safest. The law aims for maximum compliance rather than maximum safety. That's left to the individual.
its marginally safer in certain kinds of accident that are more common. its marginally less safe in other sorts of accident that are less common.
I am interested in why you think the difference is only marginal, @5lab? For children under four, rear facing is a lot safer in a forward collision, the most common type of collision by a long way (circa 50% of collisions). Side-impacts are no different and recent research has shown that rear-facing seats are as good in rear impacts as forward-facing seats. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180403085051.htm
as for why – very few cars have space for a large, rear-facing seat behind anyone who isn’t a shortarse.
We've had rear-facing seats in a Renault Scenic, Seat Leon and VW Touran, quite common cars those. We have an Axkid and a Maxi-Cosi that goes both ways. The Maxi-Cosi fit is the same as it's the isofix base that's the constraint on space. Also, with forward-facing seats you should have at least 55cm of free space in front of the child seat. This is so the child doesn't hit the seat in front of them in a collision.
rear facing seats are undeniably safer in accidents that are front-on with a closing speed of 60mph or so. For lower (<30mph) speed accidents, or accidents from other directions, there's no difference. The proportion of accidents falling into the first category is absolutely tiny, so the overall safety benefit is marginal.
Studies into this are generally emotionally driven, and don't cater for biases (for example, someone shoving a 1 year old into a front-facing seat may have different attitutes to safety/risk).
research has shown that rear-facing seats are as good in rear impacts as forward-facing seats.
your quoted study says they are 'effective' not 'as good'. No denying a rear facing seat is compeltely useless in a rear accident, in the same way a front-facing isn't useless in a front accident.
We've a 360 swivel seat (britax) and in rear facing mode it takes up a huge amount of room. There's no way I can drive in front of it (6'2) in my old car (galaxy) or my current car (zafira tourer) - we used a signum which has a specifically lengthened rear passenger compartment as a result when our kids were small. Shorter people will get on better, but its a compromise.
The proportion of accidents falling into the first category is absolutely tiny,
dunno - snapped neck puts the outcome on the risk matrix through the roof so it becomes a reasonable risk control to reduce that .
For those for whom space is at a premium, we found the Recaro Zero.1 to be the smallest of the i-size seats and also rotates.
Seat would go in the back of our Panda and front passenger didn't have to be shoved right up to the dashboard. Never had an issue getting it in friends cars, unlike theirs in the Panda.
*Stealth ad - it's still in our loft if any wants one*
rear facing seats are undeniably safer in accidents that are front-on with a closing speed of 60mph or so. For lower (<30mph) speed accidents, or accidents from other directions, there’s no difference. The proportion of accidents falling into the first category is absolutely tiny, so the overall safety benefit is marginal.
@5lab I thought this would be your answer, i.e. likelihood of most serious accidents is small. But as @trail_rat points out, the potential seriousness of the outcome and the relative ease with which it can be mitigated made rear-facing a no-brainer for us. My son is over 3yrs old and we've rear-faced up to now without issue. He's 50% on the percentiles with a typical 3 year old's attitude to match. If he didn't like it or found it uncomfortable we'd definitely know about it. Did a 4 hour drive yesterday, most issues centred on the lack of Paw Patrol, the availability of snacks and not being able to stay at the play park we stopped at mid-route.
Studies into this are generally emotionally driven, and don’t cater for biases (for example, someone shoving a 1 year old into a front-facing seat may have different attitutes to safety/risk).
The fundamental reason the Swedish Plus test was created was to try to ensure, as far as possible, a child would not be seriously injured in any road traffic accident. Seems a straight forward aim to me. As for individual biases, it doesn't matter how safe (or unsafe) you are as a driver you can't account for others. Take your example of a front-on collision with a closing speed of 60mph. That could be caused by another driver straying across the white line in a 30 mph zone.
As for individual biases, it doesn’t matter how safe (or unsafe) you are as a driver you can’t account for others.
my point wasn't that you can mitigate others, more that just looking at crash stats generally can be misleading - as perhaps the average rear-facing driver is going slower than the average front-facing (as they have a different risk attitude).
We personally had our first rear-facing till 3, the second was swapped at 2 because of space in the newer car - this wasn't a problem with them, we just couldn't fit ourselves in at the same time (both my wife and I are 6'+). At the end of the day everythings a compromise, we could have a large, 3 tonne SUV (which would decelerate a lot less in a crash) and a seat that goes rear-facing till 6, but its not worth it for us.
as perhaps the average rear-facing driver is going slower than the average front-facing
if the drivers rear facing i suggest they are much more likely to have a crash 😀