I posted this earlier in reply to another thread.

Ignore most of it but look at the 2 kids in the back, one in a forward facing seat & one in a rear facing seat, same impact, look at what a difference there is to the way they are thrown around, this is meant to be at 64 kph, around 40 mph, sobering to watch

wow, it certainly appears that the rear facing child seat performs better in that clip.

My brother and sister-in-law have one of these and it seems very sturdy, weighs an absolute ton though and takes up a lot of space. The results for the head on are excellent and had it been available when we used them we would undoubtedly have seriously considered them. However I think there is a lot more to travelling than purely safety. In a car I can forsee my kids getting bored very quickly looking at the back seat most of the time and probably getting very car sick.

When we looked for car seats for ours we watched all manner of videos like this one and came to the conclusion that rear facing seats were the way forwards (so to speak) for as long as possible. We deliberately choose a seat that could be used facing backwards (and recline as well) for the baby and then turn around and face forwards (with 3 point harness) when slightly older.

Thankfully we have not been involved in any accidents.

Now the kids are older, we have booster seats with high backs. SWMBO wanted to get the older kid a basic booster seat (no back) and hand the high back one down to the younger. I argued (and won) once I showed her the video of side impacts using booster seats with and without backs.

Hopefully neither of our kids will need to test out the safety credentials of their respective seats, but at least we have done as much as we can to protect them.

This would be no consolation should we lose one of them (children, not seats) in an accident, but how much worse would you feel if you didn't have the most suitable seat for the children in your car?

It flabbergasts me that once kids are 3 most parents just have them in the back with no boosters or worse still in the front, they don't realise that they have to be in a booster unless over 130 cm ,till the age of 12 in the rear and 12 to sit in the front. When I mention to some people the dangers, seat belt around their necks or the airbag could kill them they look at me is if I were from mars . You even see adults in the back whilst a 7 year old is in the front . More here http://www.safekids.co.uk/what-age-can-children-sit-front-seat-car.html

If the baby rear facing seat is a isofix they have fitted it wrong. My wife got one off them checks in Asdas car park and was told we were the only one to have fitted our seat properly. A lot off people don't realise you still have to use the seat belt on the base to stop it lifting off the seat in a accident, or if the car turns upside down so the seat doesn't get stuck to the roof. We have done this since day one on the rear facing and now on the forward.

It flabbergasts me that once kids are 3 most parents just have them in the back with no boosters or worse still in the front, they don't realise that they have to be in a booster unless over 130 cm ,till the age of 12 in the rear and 12 to sit in the front.

I've a niece and nephew, one's 8 one's 10, youngest has a booster, but when they sit down (at the dinner table) they're the same height, she's all body and he's all legs, I think the 130 cm limit is a bit arbitrary.

Unfortunately the UK doesn't seem too bothered by rear-facing car seats for older kids, whereas in places like Sweden they are pretty much standard.

It's very difficult, and prohibitively expensive, to actually get a rear-facing seat for over 4s over here. I can only pray we're never involved in a crash

Edited 20 August, 201213 yr by Jigger72

When you look at that film I wonder how long before they start fitting airbags to the back of the drivers seat.

Both our two kids ride in rear-facing car seats which will see them up to the age of four. It was one of the reasons we bought a Superb recently - the legroom in the back allows for plenty of space for fitting this type of seat and means there is enough clearance between them and the back of the front seats (if there's less than 25cm clearance, you are supposed to ensure the front seats are in contact with the child seat back - which means extremely limited seat adjustment in the front).

As for the recommendation to use the rear seatbelts as well as the Isofix fixings, I'm amazed - the manual that came with our seats say specifically not to use the belts when they're rear-facing (they are bi-directional but only belted when facing forwards).

You do what you can, what seems reasonable.

Our boy was out of his rear facing seat at 9 months, he was simply too big to fit in the carrier any more.

Somehow most of us survived being in much riskier cars over the last 20-30 years. My folks didn't own a car with rear seatbelts until I was about 10.

When you look at that film I wonder how long before they start fitting airbags to the back of the drivers seat.

+1

Reading the info on the Roomster from Ncap, it appears that some makes and models (not the Roomster) have airbags fitted for drivers legs area in the cabin. Back of the front seats seems like a great idea.

Shall we pop over to Dragons Den and ask for a few quid?