| Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) |
04-28-2005 04:45 PM |
Rear/Front facing
Quote:
Originally posted by TexLex
I have no doubt that your driving is beyond reproach, much like mine. I have been rear-ended 3x in the last 2 years because I am just lucky like that: my 2002 vehicle is on replacement bumper #3.
I can assure you that even if rear ended, after the initial bump, one's head tends to lurch toward the front of the hit car quite quickly because it is pushed in the direction the other car was going. If you are going forward and hit something slower, one's head continues going in the direction your car was going (is this not Newton's 2nd law or something?). Anyway, this is the logic behind the rear-facing carseat as far as I can figure it. Now, if you are stopped and hit head-on from the front, the rear-facing baby is toast, but until they invent some sort of plastic-travel- bubble for babies, that's just a risk you take.
|
Don't know which Law it is, but the other one of them will tell you that if hit from the rear, the greatest acceleration will be upon the initial hit, and the "rebound" acceleration (likely from hitting the car in front of you) will not be as great. Conservation of energy and all that.
Fact of it is, the calculus can only be that the severity of a frontal collision is likely to pose greater problems for a front facing car seat than a rearward collision is for a rear-facing car seat, hence the recommendation. After a certain age, they figure the straps won't crush the chest, so it balances out better.
ETA: If you're hit from the front, i.e., head on, it doesn't matter, other than severity, whether you're moving or not. The rear-facing baby seat will be better than front facing for such collisions.
|