Rear-facing child seats have more protection

„Reboarder“ often the safer option for children

03/18/2014

If you want to transport your child in the car as safely as possible, you should better use a rear-facing child seat. Such a „Reboarder“ would generally offer more security compared to a forward-looking seat because „In the event of an accident, the child is forced into the seat and the forces are distributed better, according to Andreas Ratzek of the ADAC to the news agency „dpa“. However, caution should also be exercised with these seats, as the risk of an insufficiently secured seat is particularly high due to the sometimes difficult installation.

Reboard will transfer the stress over the whole back of the child
Who wants to transport his toddler in the car, is spoiled for choice: While babies up to a weight of 9 kilos in the backward „Maxi Cosi“ ride, must be made in older children, the decision whether they continue to be backward (reboard) or looking forward looking secured. From an expert's point of view, the Reboarder is preferable here, since children in these are generally better protected, according to Sven Rademacher of the German Road Safety Council (DVR) „dpa“. Especially in a frontal crash, such a seat would therefore offer advantages over seats in which children look in the direction of travel, as the burden is transmitted over the entire back of the child instead of greatly overstretching the spine.

Systems for children up to three years available
The Reboers are mostly seats up to a body weight of 13 kg, in addition, there are also models that are designed for children up to about 3 years. The timing of switching to a forward-looking seat is, from an expert's perspective, not dependent on a specific age, but on several factors. For example, it's time for one „change of direction“ if the child in the Reboarder pushes his legs against the backseat or if he gets sick in this sitting position. In general, a Reboarder should absolutely be tried before the purchase, because as ADAC tester Ratzek explains, it would just come in small cars often to space problems. Compared to the forward-facing child seats costs the safety plus when looking back, but also a lot more: Here, according to Ratzek between 300 and 500 euros for models like „Cybex Sirona“, „Britax fixway“ or „Maxi Cosi Milofix“ whereas a forward-looking child seat is already available for less than 100 euros.

In side impact no difference to the forward seat
While children are obviously much safer in a head-on crash in Reboarder, the situation would be different in a side impact, according to Andreas Ratzek, because here the rear-facing child seats would offer no advantage, the expert said. Especially with one „90 degree Impact“ could such a seat even be detrimental, since the child is located by the sitting position at a distance from the anchor point, which is usually between the rear seat backrest and seat. Here, according to Ratzek crash tests revealed that the relatively long fortifications partially broke. In addition, especially for the systems for children over 13 kg body weight often a more complicated installation is required, through which it can quickly happen that a seat is not adequately secured and thus can be a real danger to the child.

Isofix reduces the risk of incorrect installation
To minimize the risk of incorrect installation, experts have been recommending the use of „Isofix“, which means a relatively easy-to-use attachment system for child seats, in which a firm connection between the body and child seat is achieved. However, since there are significant quality differences even with these systems and also not every Isofix child seat can be used in every vehicle, the ADAC should also be thoroughly informed before the purchase. In addition to safety, according to the automobile club also the aspect „pollutants“ Not to be ignored - even if the manufacturers generally pay attention to ever lower loads. For example, in the context of a child seat test last year, the testers had 2 child seats („Concord“, „Cybex“) because of increased values ​​devalued to "satisfactory" and the „Romans Max-Fix“ classified as "poor". (No)