# Would you go against the rules...



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

and turn your baby's carseat facing forward if they meet the weight limit, but were two months shy of being 1-year-old? Why is there a weight AND age requirement? Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?

Thoughts? TIA


----------



## lovesdaffodils (Jul 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
and turn your baby's carseat facing forward if they meet the weight limit, but were two months shy of being 1-year-old? *Why is there a weight AND age requirement? Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?*

Thoughts? TIA

Basically, yes. It's not just about weight but physical development as well. A baby under one year old is definitely not developed enough to be safe facing forward. However, it's actually safest to keep your child rear-facing as long as possible. If they are 20lbs, get a convertible seat which can rear-face to a higher weight limit (30-35lbs), and keep them rear-facing until they outgrow that limit.


----------



## wonderwahine (Apr 21, 2006)

only if there were special circumstances to cause the turning to even be an issue


----------



## Daisie125 (Oct 26, 2005)

I wouldn't turn a child until they were at least two, and that's pushing it. My son will be rearfacing until he outgrows the seat. (33lbs)


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lovesdaffodils* 
Basically, yes. It's not just about weight but physical development as well. A baby under one year old is definitely not developed enough to be safe facing forward. However, it's actually safest to keep your child rear-facing as long as possible. If they are 20lbs, get a convertible seat which can rear-face to a higher weight limit (30-35lbs), and keep them rear-facing until they outgrow that limit.

But here's what doesn't make sense - if it's about physical development, we all know that that happens at a different rate for every child, so the 1 year mark seems rather arbitrary to me. Is there some specific skill or reflex or something that they need to (or should) exhibit?


----------



## mothragirl (Sep 10, 2005)

that is an absolute minimum (20 lbs, 1 year), but it is safest as long as the baby meets the seat requirements. it is about spinal/neck development and strength, and the size of their head compared to their body. the younger they are the heavier their head is compared to their body and the easier it is for it to be seriously hurt in an accident when forward facing. i don't know if you've ever had whiplash, but it is that but much worse, and with far graver consequences.


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Yes, I would - and have.

I think all these type of "rules" are general, and common sense should overrule. Just because a society says you should BF for a minimum of 1 year does not mean that the day after your DC turns one you milk suddenly goes sour! And 1 year for a car seat does not mean that the same baby will be magically great forward facing the day they turn one.

I put my DD forward facing at 10 months. Yes, if she had loved, or even liked, backwards facing, I would have kept her that way another year. But actually, her backwards facing, screaming her head off constantly, no matter what we tried, meant my DH had to pull over to the side of the road, and constantly keep an eye on her instead of the road. That was much more dangerous that her forward facing. Now she is forward facing, can see the world (not just the toys in her lap), can interact with her big brother and is happy, and DH's eyes and ears are where they should be - on the road.


----------



## wanderinggypsy (Jul 26, 2005)

Yep... my infant bucket (graco safeseat) is good to 30 pounds - that's why I chose it, because the longer facing backwards, the better!!


----------



## Kat_shoshin (Feb 16, 2007)

I may not keep them rear facing until they were two - but I would do it for at least the year. My son is nearly outgrown the weight limit and 8 months old. We are pushing the weight limit and keeping him rear facing until at least 1 year. Here is the thread with the info on why:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...=784016&page=3


----------



## Pam_and_Abigail (Dec 2, 2002)

Yes, I would bend the rule about turning at one year, and keep my child rear facing for much longer, until they outgrew the rf position. For my kids, who are tall and slim (don't get it from me), they outgrow the height limit before the weight.

We're all safest rf, but you can't drive that way.

wanderinggypsy, what is the height limit for rf in your graco seat? I'm looking for a new bucket for baby #3 (he/she will be in a radian when the bucket gets too small).

Thanks!


----------



## pbjmama (Sep 20, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daisie125* 
I wouldn't turn a child until they were at least two, and that's pushing it. My son will be rearfacing until he outgrows the seat. (33lbs)

We turned my son at 18 months at 32 lbs, until at least 2 wasn't an option. And OP, no I wouldn't go against the law and turn early. The standards are the absolute minimum in this case. It has to do with spinal/muscle development (age) as well as weight and all sorts of other things.

We also had the safeseat and I think the height limit was 33 inches? We loved it!


----------



## anabellee (Jul 3, 2005)

the longer you stay rf the better. it is safer. however, my ds1 got extremely carsick and so we did turn him at his 1yr b-day. ds2 isn't bothered by it though so i intend to leave him rf as long as possible.


----------



## katemum (May 14, 2007)

We're going to wait as long as possible to turn dd (now 9.5 months), on the recommendation of a friend who does car safety research and said that rear-facing is basically always best. Beyond 1 year, considerations that we'll have to make are (I expect) - is dd too tall for rear-facing (ie are her legs too long for the space?), how fussy she is about facing backwards vs. forwards (she might really want to see where we're going...), and whether she has problems with motion sickness.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

No way would I turn a babe FF at that age.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

No. I turned my son on his first bday because he was one of those scream in the car babies, and I had no idea rear facing was so much safer. Knowing what I know now, I probably would have waited longer, although I would have had to balance that against the real possibility of getting into an accident because I was distracted by his crying.

I rturned my daughter at 18 months because she hit the rearfacing limit for her seat. My 25 month old is still rearfacing and probably won't hit the rearfacing limit on his seat before he turns three (he's little).

As far as breaking guidlines/laws to turn a child early - I'd be more inclined to turn a 19.5 lb 2 year old than I would a 30 lb 1 year old.


----------



## bc1995 (Mar 22, 2004)

I can not imagine turning my 10 mo around already. I keep mine rear facing until at least 2.


----------



## dancebaraka (Dec 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
Yes, I would - and have.

I think all these type of "rules" are general, and common sense should overrule. Just because a society says you should BF for a minimum of 1 year does not mean that the day after your DC turns one you milk suddenly goes sour! And 1 year for a car seat does not mean that the same baby will be magically great forward facing the day they turn one.

I put my DD forward facing at 10 months. Yes, if she had loved, or even liked, backwards facing, I would have kept her that way another year. But actually, her backwards facing, screaming her head off constantly, no matter what we tried, meant my DH had to pull over to the side of the road, and constantly keep an eye on her instead of the road. That was much more dangerous that her forward facing. Now she is forward facing, can see the world (not just the toys in her lap), can interact with her big brother and is happy, and DH's eyes and ears are where they should be - on the road.

ITA but I think we are in the minority! I remember when I was a small kid, my parents car didn't even have seatbelts in the backseat... it would be an interesting sociological study to examine how we have become so uber-safety conscious in our society in such a short time. I am sure backwards facing is better, and I understand the argument certainly, but only if your kiddo can be happy rear facing... if she's screaming her head off rear facing than how is that not a risk or harmful to the babe? CIO in the backseat doesn't sound good to me. I guess I am just not that fearful. Probably why I birthed my daughter in my backyard with nothing sterile and no emergency equipment....


----------



## acp (Apr 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
I think all these type of "rules" are general, and common sense should overrule. Just because a society says you should BF for a minimum of 1 year does not mean that the day after your DC turns one you milk suddenly goes sour! And 1 year for a car seat does not mean that the same baby will be magically great forward facing the day they turn one.

I agree (but it does seem like we're in the minority!). DD is going to hit 20 lbs long before she hits one year, and while I won't turn her at that point, I probably will turn her a little earlier than 1 year (maybe 10 or 11 months), simply because she HATES the car seat so much and I think forward facing would help a lot.
I know that rear facing is safer, but I guess I'm a bit more like the previous poster when it comes to not being uber-safety conscious (maybe why I was OK with downhill skiing and eating soft cheese and sushi while I was pregnant as well














- It's not that I don't think safety is a good thing, obviously, and I'm incredibly grateful for all the babies' lives that car seats have saved, but I sometimes feel like we've gone too far in this direction as a society - making us think, erroneously, that we can control for every little thing, and sometimes instilling too much fear into our little ones as they grow older.
If DD were happy rear-facing, I'd most certainly keep her that way as long as possible since it's safer and working for her. Since she's not, I'll probably switch her around earlier.


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

My baby was 20 pounds at 3ish months. Should I have turned him ff?

The guidelines take age and weight into account for a reason.


----------



## dancebaraka (Dec 14, 2006)

Well... according to the guidelines I should still be using a booster seat









sorry... I am usually not so snarky..


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Yeah and so should I. If I found one that I could use, I would use it.

In my old car, I used a pillow. In my new car, the seat goes up, so my seatbelt fits properly and i can reach everything.

I am not going overboard with safety. My daughter turned ff at 20 months because she outgrew rf by height, and I didn't realize that other seats had higher heights.

I eta soft cheeses, sushi, drink a glass of wine while pregnant.

So should I have turned my baby when he was 3 months old?


----------



## dancebaraka (Dec 14, 2006)

I think you should do what feels best for you and your family... how could I answer a question like that for you?? You are the wisest expert and guide your family could have. We all take in all the info and make the best decisions we can, IMHO.

...ok now everyone on MDC knows I am a libertarian!


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

You missed my point, but that's okay. Have a nice day.


----------



## ksera05 (Apr 14, 2006)

I would absolutely not turn a child forward facing before a year (at minimum) no matter what they weighed. It's not only about weight - it's also about spinal cord/neck development - and 1 year is a MINIMUM for when it's safe to ride FF. Not the maximum for safety RF.


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

I agree with the other posters who said they'd never do it.
The risks are just to big IMO.

The bucket seat I have goes up to 30 lbs RF, and then the next step for DS2 is a convertable that DS1 has that will go up until 35 lbs RF.

It doesn't matter if their legs are touching the back seat, kids are used to curling them up.
Besides, I'd much rather risk a broken leg than a broken neck.


----------



## askew (Jun 15, 2006)

I would never turn FF that early. My DS was 20 lbs at 4 months! We will RF until 33 lbs.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
So should I have turned my baby when he was 3 months old?

There's obviously a big difference between 3 months and 10 months (or a year, or two years). Like the pp said, that's your decision to make!









I hadn't even considered height limits - DS is off the charts for height, so I should also look into that.

Honestly, I cannot imagine waiting until DS is two to turn him. He already cranks his neck to look at me from the back. Sometimes I'll "feel" eyes one me and he'll be staring at me!


----------



## the_lissa (Oct 30, 2004)

Well you are the one who said it couldn't be about physical development, so if my 3 month old was the same size as your 10 month old, what is the difference?


----------



## devster4fun (Jan 28, 2007)

I enjoy having my DD's head attached to her body, so we rear-faced to the weight limit of the seat.

Seriously, a crying baby vs. a head-severing/spinal column injury? This is what paramedics find in accidents with children. For me, there was no choice to be made.

But, to each their own. It makes no difference to me what another Mom does. I gave that up a few months ago!







You can forward face when you want, feed solids, potty learn etc...whenever and however you like. I used to get all passionate and try to convince people of things...it's generally useless.


----------



## WhaleinGaloshes (Oct 9, 2006)

No way would I turn a child younger than age 1 FF.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?


Yes! She grows and matures, her head and neck muscles, bones and ligaments grow stronger and her body will begin to 'catch up' to her head which is disproportunately large and heavy in an infant.

There is plenty of literature (both printed and online) available on why rear-facing is safer for infants. This site is one that specifically addresses why an older baby is better equipped to ride FF than a 10 month old; nothing magical about it:

http://www.freewebs.com/sacredjourne...npreschool.htm


----------



## liam's mom (Jun 18, 2003)

no way. in fact quinn's almost 19 months, well over the physical development/height/weight/age mininums, and i won't be turning him until at least age 2.


----------



## artgoddess (Jun 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
and turn your baby's carseat facing forward if they meet the weight limit, but were two months shy of being 1-year-old? Why is there a weight AND age requirement? Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?

Thoughts? TIA

never. I'll be keeping dd rear facing for as long as I can.


----------



## katheek77 (Mar 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *acp* 
I know that rear facing is safer, but I guess I'm a bit more like the previous poster when it comes to not being uber-safety conscious (maybe why I was OK with downhill skiing and eating soft cheese and sushi while I was pregnant as well














....If DD were happy rear-facing, I'd most certainly keep her that way as long as possible since it's safer and working for her. Since she's not, I'll probably switch her around earlier.

There's a big difference between eating soft cheese while pregnant, and turning an infant forward facing in a car seat.

What if DD isn't happy forward facing? What if she just doesn't like the car seat at ALL??? (I do know a child like this....HATES HATES HATES the car seat and screams the whole time - not real fun to ride with). Is that a free pass to no car seat, then?

It's not being uber-safety conscious. To me, uber-safety conscious is the parent who doesn't let their 10 year old play alone in the backyard without a parent watching or doesn't let a 12 year old use a steak knife at dinner. Not placing an infant, with a disproportionately top-heavy body and underdeveloped neck muscles in the position which is safest for them in the event that they are involved in a collision involving a ton or two of material at 40 miles per hour just seems incredibly irresponsible. Google "internal decapitation"


----------



## ann_of_loxley (Sep 21, 2007)

I think the quidlines take age and weight into account - for two different reasons.

My understanding was the age thing was about development - muscle development and being able to cope forward facing if an accident were to occur.

Whilst weight has everything to do with what the car seat can cope.

My son was unexpectedly born large so did not fit into his infant carrier for long. Waste of money that thing anyhow! lol.... Next child we are investing in a car seat that is from birth to 4 years (5 point harness all the time)...its one of those car seats that is rear facing then can be forward facing if you wish past a certain age (development).

I know in America its they cant be forward facing till the are a year old. Here in the UK its 9 months. But weight is more focused on I think. The issue is, with weight...is that the car seat can only handle that. If your child outwights what the car seat recommends...you NEED to get a new one! Ex: My son just outgrew (hes only 2) his car seat - 5 point harness up to the age of 4...simply because of his weight. The 5 point harness says only to use up to the weight of 35lbs...hes that weight - so we got him a car seat that can take more weight. This is a huge safety reason.

So: If your childs weight has outgrown the car seat you have...get a new one!....if you want them rear facing for longer...spend a bit of extra money on a car seat that can take rear facing in a higher weight.


----------



## acp (Apr 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katheek77* 
There's a big difference between eating soft cheese while pregnant, and turning an infant forward facing in a car seat.

What if DD isn't happy forward facing? What if she just doesn't like the car seat at ALL??? (I do know a child like this....HATES HATES HATES the car seat and screams the whole time - not real fun to ride with). Is that a free pass to no car seat, then?

It's not being uber-safety conscious. To me, uber-safety conscious is the parent who doesn't let their 10 year old play alone in the backyard without a parent watching or doesn't let a 12 year old use a steak knife at dinner. Not placing an infant, with a disproportionately top-heavy body and underdeveloped neck muscles in the position which is safest for them in the event that they are involved in a collision involving a ton or two of material at 40 miles per hour just seems incredibly irresponsible. Google "internal decapitation"

All fair points, but honestly, I think we all do what we're comfortable with, and sometimes make different decisions. I should note that I live in the city and *rarely* (maybe once every 2-3 weeks) use the car with DD. If I used the car often, I might try and keep her rear-facing longer. If, whenever I do decide to face her front (and I have no clue when we'll do this - most likely we'll wait till she's a year old, but it's at least possible I'd consider it around 10 or 11 months), she shows no obvious preference over rear facing, then I'd most likely switch it back to rear-facing for as long as she's under the weight limit.
My basic strategy is to avoid car crashes completely - I realize no one can guarantee that, especially since you can't control the driving of other people on the road. But I certainly feel like a less safe driver when DD is screaming her head off.

Perhaps I shouldn't have gone off on the uber-safety conscious tangent, since that's really a different issue (albeit one that's been on my mind). Certainly I don't think anyone who keeps their child rear-facing for two years is over-cautious. But I do think the fact that I don't often live in paranoia of the worst-case scenarios (child abduction, SIDS, fatal car or bus crashes) happening to me make me a little more likely to do things like tummy sleep, ride the bus with DD, etc. (and I realize, because someone will point it out, that car crashes are much more likely than the first two). Some people might find that irresponsible, but I'd like to think that I think carefully about the big things and generally keep DD in a very safe and loving environment, while also trying not to communicate a sense of fear about the world to her.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *the_lissa* 
Well you are the one who said it couldn't be about physical development, so if my 3 month old was the same size as your 10 month old, what is the difference?

Can you show me where I said that it couldn't be about physical development? I know I asked, "IS there some magical thing that happens?" and "IF it is about physical development..." but I don't remember stating that it "couldn't be." Maybe you can cut and paste where I said that and post it to me.

And physical development doesn't just mean weight - it also means what other people are talking about here - proportions and the whole whiplash thing. So, at 3 months old, I would imagine that your DC's proportions would be different than my 10-month-old's even though they may be the same weight.


----------



## Marlet (Sep 9, 2004)

Nope. I've seen the crash test videos for rf vs. ff. Add in that I have insanely tiny babies and I wouldn' even consider it.

Oh and I should be in a booster too. DH told me he was getting me one for Christmas.


----------



## *Aimee* (Jan 8, 2007)

Can someone post the video? You know the one, the horrible one showing what happens when people turn their babies front facing? Thats why my 17 month old is still RF.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

The weight AND age requirements are both minimums. An 18 lb 1yo needs to be RF, as does a 22lb 10mo. In those 2 months, your baby's neck bones and muscles will grow a lot stronger, and be better able to handle the forces of an impact while in the FF position. All babies and toddlers are safer RF if the seats can accomodate their heights and weights.

Neither of my daughters were 20lbs by their first birthdays- so I kept them RF until they hit the magical 20 lbs. Actually, I think I turned DD1 around a little earlier because she was 15mo and in shoes and the convertible carseats in those days had the seatbelt OVER the carseat and it was just too hard to get her in and out and buckle her in properly!

I kept DS RF until he reached the height limit for RF in his seat. He was about 2.5yo at the time. RF really is much, much safer.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by **Aimee** 
Can someone post the video? You know the one, the horrible one showing what happens when people turn their babies front facing? Thats why my 17 month old is still RF.

How is this any different than showing a woman who's going to birth at home a horrible video of a labor where there were complications??! This seems to be perpetuating fear a little too much for me even though I get what you're saying.


----------



## Trillian (Nov 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
and turn your baby's carseat facing forward if they meet the weight limit, but were two months shy of being 1-year-old? Why is there a weight AND age requirement? Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?

Thoughts? TIA

It seems obvious to me that the 1-year limit is arbitrary. The law has to draw a line somewhere but clearly FFing doesn't go from being "unsafe" to "safe" at the 12-month mark. At best it goes from "unsafe" to "marginally less unsafe." I think the only reasonable thing to do is stay RF as long as possible because it is safer for anyone of any age in an accident.

However I am sympathetic to the idea that not having a screaming baby in the back seat may reduce your overall risk... I am grateful I haven't had to deal with that dilemma.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trillian* 
It seems obvious to me that the 1-year limit is arbitrary. The law has to draw a line somewhere but clearly FFing doesn't go from being "unsafe" to "safe" at the 12-month mark. *At best it goes from "unsafe" to "marginally less unsafe." I think the only reasonable thing to do is stay RF as long as possible because it is safer for anyone of any age in an accident.*
However I am sympathetic to the idea that not having a screaming baby in the back seat may reduce your overall risk... I am grateful I haven't had to deal with that dilemma.

ITA My dd is getting ready to turn two and she is still not 20 lbs. People keep telling me I should turn her, but she is going to be RF for a looooong time.


----------



## DoomaYula (Aug 22, 2006)

I turned my older dd ff when she was 1yo. She gets carsick. Then I learned some info about how being rf is much safer than ff, and so when she was about 2yo, I turned her back to rf. She will be rf til she hits the weight limit, which is 35lbs.


----------



## lrlittle (Nov 11, 2005)

http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
How is this any different than showing a woman who's going to birth at home a horrible video of a labor where there were complications??! This seems to be perpetuating fear a little too much for me even though I get what you're saying.

I think the video in question is the one that shows crash test dummies and describes the physics of what happens in a rearfacing crash vrs a forward facing crash. i don't consider that fear mongering propaganda so much as information needed to make an informed decision.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lrlittle* 
http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

Thanks for this link - lots of good information here that answered my question(s)!

We have a Britax Marathon and on this website, it says that for this car seat 25" is the max for rear-facing, but that doesn't sound right to me... could that be right? I will have to check with my manual. DS is 29" already, so if that's the case, then maybe we will have to go front facing sooner rather than later.


----------



## AutumnMama (Jan 2, 2004)

Really, overall height has little to do with it; it's the torso length that is important.
If your DC's head is less than an inch from the top of the car seat shell then you need a new one (RF).
(For FF it's if their ears are level with the top.)

That site (car-safety.org) is a great one for finding everything you need to know regarding car seats; I've spent several hours there in the past year or so.

ETA: Somewhere there is a link to measurements on nearly every car seat out there. Seat to strap measurement being the torso one I was referring to.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
Thanks for this link - lots of good information here that answered my question(s)!

We have a Britax Marathon and on this website, it says that for this car seat 25" is the max for rear-facing, but that doesn't sound right to me... could that be right? I will have to check with my manual. DS is 29" already, so if that's the case, then maybe we will have to go front facing sooner rather than later.










It says that 25 inches is the height of the shell as measured from the seat. So your child would be safe if the measurement from their butt to their head, while seated, was around 24 inches.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Back in 2000, Barbara Weber put all the then-current research on child car seat safety into one amazing article: "Crash Protection for Child Passengers: A Review of Best Practices."

From what I remember from that and other articles: The 12-month number is based on crash statistics.

THe progression of "child's spinal cord is likely to snap and leave child paralyzed" is not a straight line, if you graph it. The chances of serious spinal injury due to the whole "heavy head weak neck" thing don't start high and drop gradually as the child matures. When they ran the numbers on thousands of crash outcomes, they found a major line could be drawn through the numbers at the 12-month mark. Beneath it, the chances of serious injury were so high that it makes sense to legislate mandatory rearfacing. Above it, the child is still significantly safer riding backwards, but the risk/benefit of turning vs. not turning is not as wildly clearcut.

So the line is "arbitrary" to a point. The line had to be drawn somewhere. BUt, as Weber describes, it's very clear that at less than 12 months, there is a difference.

As Weber says: "Accident experience has shown that a young child's skull can be separated from its spine by the force of a crash, the spinal cord can be severed, or the child may live but suffer paraplegia or tetraplegia due to the stretched and damaged cord. Eleven cases studied in depth were included in the two 1993 reports. All children with severe injuries were 12 months old or younger, whereas others who suffered less severe injuries,
such as C2 odontoid fractures, were over 18 months."


----------



## anothermama (Nov 11, 2003)

Nope I wouldn't do it. I would err on the side of keeping them rear facing longer than turning sooner if I was worried about what the difference was between a 10 month old and a 12 month old.

FWIW, I had giant babies and I expect another. Both my babies outgrew their infant seats before they were ready to forward face. So I just moved them into convertible seats and rear faced.


----------



## paradoxia13 (Aug 21, 2006)

My son is 10 months old, and 27 lbs. There is no way I'd turn him yet.


----------



## lemurmommies (Jan 15, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trillian* 
It seems obvious to me that the 1-year limit is arbitrary. *The law has to draw a line somewhere but clearly FFing doesn't go from being "unsafe" to "safe" at the 12-month mark. At best it goes from "unsafe" to "marginally less unsafe."* I think the only reasonable thing to do is stay RF as long as possible because it is safer for anyone of any age in an accident.









Thanks for summing it up way better than I could have.

My DS is 25 pounds and 11 months. There is no way in heck I would consider turning him around. His head is huge. Huge! In the 97% for 19 month olds. So to me, the risks of internal decapitation seem very, very real. He will be rear facing in his Marathon until he outgrows it by weight or height.


----------



## *Aimee* (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I think the video in question is the one that shows crash test dummies and describes the physics of what happens in a rearfacing crash vrs a forward facing crash. i don't consider that fear mongering propaganda so much as information needed to make an informed decision.

Yes thank you. I dont think its fear mongering to be educated and know what I'm doing, regardless of what I choose to do I want to make an educated choice.


----------



## christy005 (Mar 5, 2007)

I definitely wouldn't. But I'm not planning on turning ds forward facing until he reaches the rf limit of his seat.


----------



## Trillian (Nov 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
Back in 2000, Barbara Weber put all the then-current research on child car seat safety into one amazing article: "Crash Protection for Child Passengers: A Review of Best Practices."

From what I remember from that and other articles: The 12-month number is based on crash statistics.

Thanks for posting that. I didn't know what kind of evidence the law was based on.


----------



## sofiabugmom (Sep 23, 2003)

FWIW, we had to turn DD around at one year (the minimum age to turn children around at that time in our state) even though she wasn't 20 pounds yet. She was so long that her knees were in her chest when she was in the rear-facing seat.

I talked to the pediatrician about it before I turned the seat, and he told me that the requirements had as much to do with muscle development as with weight. He also agreed that she was probably in more danger with her knees bent up if we had an accident.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sofiabugmom* 
FWIW, we had to turn DD around at one year (the minimum age to turn children around at that time in our state) even though she wasn't 20 pounds yet. She was so long that her knees were in her chest when she was in the rear-facing seat.

I talked to the pediatrician about it before I turned the seat, and he told me that the requirements had as much to do with muscle development as with weight. He also agreed that she was probably in more danger with her knees bent up if we had an accident.


Unless she was in one of the baby buckets, i don' see how her legs could literally be up in her chest at one year. I've seen large thee and four year olds rear facing that don't have their legs that way. Your ped was also incorrect about her being in more danger with her knees bent - the danger to her legs is _possibly_ that she would break them. The danger of forward facing too early is internal decapitation


----------



## kaylee18 (Dec 25, 2005)

The required training to become a pediatrician has nothing to do with carseats, and muscle development has nothing to do with the ability of the skeleton to withstand crash forces. The spine is gradually calcified between 1 and 3 years as the head becomes less of the total body mass, and these are the developmental factors that are important.


----------



## sofiabugmom (Sep 23, 2003)

Well, color me corrected







:









To answer a previous question, DD was not in a bucket seat, it was a Britax Marathon. And she was probably closer to 16 months, as opposed to 12, which certainly does make a difference in development (not saying my pediatrician gave me correct information; just correcting DD's age from my PP).

But the bottom line: Hopefully this information, including the correction of the *mis*information I was given, will help the OP with her issue.


----------



## knowerofnada (Dec 4, 2006)

My DD is 21 months old and 21 pounds and I will not be facing her forward until she exceeds the rear-facing weight limit of our Britax Decathlon -- 33 lbs. It is much, much, much safer.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Does anyone know of the top of their heads what the rear-facing max. weight for the Britax Marathon is? And the rear-facing max height? If not, I can always look at my manual.

Thanks for everyone's responses! Who knew that this was such a heated topic? Certainly not me. I get the whole thing about the spinal cord and the head proportion - that makes a lot of sense. I definitely won't be turning DS before a year.


----------



## elmh23 (Jul 1, 2004)

I'm pretty sure the max rfing weight for a Marathon is 35lbs. Height would be when your childs head is one inch from the top of the shell (which varies for every childs length, since some kids are all legs or all toreso.)

Oh and I wouldn't turn a 10 month old, but I did turn my 12 month old cause of screaming (I seriously couldn't deal anymore.) She was 25lbs at the time (same weight at 10 months.)


----------



## riversong (Aug 11, 2005)

I hope someone can find the link to the crash test video of the dummy forward vs. rear facing. It's powerful and completely convinced me that ds needs to stay rf till he reaches the weight limit of his Roundabout (30 lbs.)


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
Does anyone know of the top of their heads what the rear-facing max. weight for the Britax Marathon is? And the rear-facing max height? If not, I can always look at my manual.

Thanks for everyone's responses! Who knew that this was such a heated topic? Certainly not me. I get the whole thing about the spinal cord and the head proportion - that makes a lot of sense. I definitely won't be turning DS before a year.

I'm almost certain that the max limit rearfacing for the Marathon is 33 lbs. The seat is outgrown by height when the top of the head is within one inch of the top of the shell.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:

No. I turned my son on his first bday because he was one of those scream in the car babies, and I had no idea rear facing was so much safer. Knowing what I know now, I probably would have waited longer, although I would have had to balance that against the real possibility of getting into an accident because I was distracted by his crying.

That was us, too. However, DS was 30 lbs, also, and at the weight limit of his current carseat. Also, he had moved to the top straps, and the top straps are for forward facing only.

DD is also a screamer. Much worse than DS. But she's a tiny thing, and she will stay rear facing until 30ish pounds, which won't be for a very long time. Turning her around won't change anything for her, either. She just wants to nurse in the car, which isn't possible when I'm driving. Sigh... it's frustrating for a parent who does not like to leave her baby crying.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Moving to family safety


----------



## thepeach80 (Mar 16, 2004)

FTR, Evan will be 3 3 wks from today and is still rfing. He's 26.5# and I'm thinking of turning him ffing this summer when Ilana needs a convertible, but I can't seem to make a concrete decision to do so b/c I know he can still rf.







Ilana is over the 1/20# mark and still rfing of course. Neither of their legs are anywhere near their chest and neither was AJ's when he turned at about 37".






Side by side pic of a ffing child vs rfing child in a frontal crash.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...RF-FFcrash.jpg

Quote:

How is this any different than showing a woman who's going to birth at home a horrible video of a labor where there were complications??! This seems to be perpetuating fear a little too much for me even though I get what you're saying.
Every birth is different. You can't just show a video and say this is what it will be like. This crash test IS what will happen to your child in a ffing crash, whether they are rfing or ffing. There's no denying plain physics.

Quote:

He also agreed that she was probably in more danger with her knees bent up if we had an accident.
I guess the alternative of a broken neck sounded better to him? Not to be rude, but I don't think people think when they say things like that to people.

I find the attitude some here have about not being safety conscious etc is insane. I was given my child to care for and protect and I will do that to the best of my ability w/ the knowledge I was given. The more I have learned the better job I have done IMO. It would be unfair to my child to have learned what I have and choose to ignore b/c I was afraid to change or afraid that keeping my kids safe the best way I could would make me less of a parent or whatever it is that people think will happen.


----------



## s_kristina (Aug 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thepeach80* 
I find the attitude some here have about not being safety conscious etc is insane. I was given my child to care for and protect and I will do that to the best of my ability w/ the knowledge I was given. The more I have learned the better job I have done IMO. It would be unfair to my child to have learned what I have and choose to ignore b/c I was afraid to change or afraid that keeping my kids safe the best way I could would make me less of a parent or whatever it is that people think will happen.

I think is such an important point. When my dd was a year old I had never heard of keeping them rf past 1 year/20lbs so she went to ff then. She also stopped puking every time she went in the truck when she went ff so to me it seemed like a wonderful thing. By the time ds was born I knew about extended rf and he was kept rf to the limits of his seat. I've got huge kids though so it's nowhere near as long as some kids can stay rf. Honestly the only time I've wished I could change my kids is when it comes to vehicle safety. If they just weren't so big I could keep them safer longer and not have to worry about them as much when we go somewhere in the truck.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

It sounds like the OP is under the impression that the "weight limit" to turn a child forward facing is 20 pounds. Again, that is the absolute bare minimum--a child MUST be one and 20 pounds. The weight limit of your seat (if you have a convertible) is between 30 and 35 pounds, depending on the seat, and that is the point at which I would turn them FF.


----------



## LizaBear (Feb 1, 2003)

Sure - I bend the 1yr / 20lb rule.

My DS1 went FF at 23 months, and 34lbs (his seat maxed at 35 lbs)

My DD went FF at 2 yrs, 3 months and 27 lbs. That was too early
for my liking, but I was due with baby #3 in a few weeks and could NOT fit 2 RF and 1 FF seats in our car. If I could have, she's have been RF until past 3 yrs - as she is JUST now getting to 35 lbs.

DS2 is 11 months old and 27 lbs. He's in a Graco SafeSeat1 that goes to 30 lbs. At which point, he'll go into our Regal Ride that RF to 35lbs. We'll see how much time that buys us.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
But here's what doesn't make sense - if it's about physical development, we all know that that happens at a different rate for every child, so the 1 year mark seems rather arbitrary to me. Is there some specific skill or reflex or something that they need to (or should) exhibit?

The 1-year mark is somewhat arbitrary (though a PP noted the research that it's based on). Some countries it's six months, some it's nine, and then in Sweden (where they make Volvos and Saabs... some of the safest cars on the road... and I've been in two accidents in Saabs; WOW they are amazing) the minimum age to go front-facing is four YEARS. So, yeah, kinda arbitrary... but not arbitrarily high, IMO.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
There's obviously a big difference between 3 months and 10 months (or a year, or two years). Like the pp said, that's your decision to make!









No, not really. It's a law. You can, at the very least, get cited and have to pay a fine if you turn your child around before they meet the minimum requirements. If you're on a military base (I've heard, from friends who were Marines at the time) failure to have your child properly restrained in a moving car can get you brought up on charges of child neglect and endangerment. Your kids could be separated from their family for this infraction. (Not necessarily "will" or "are likely to be," but it's a criminal charge, not just a ticket.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
Honestly, I cannot imagine waiting until DS is two to turn him. He already cranks his neck to look at me from the back. Sometimes I'll "feel" eyes one me and he'll be staring at me!

Do you have a mirror for him? DS loved his when he was RF.


----------



## JavaFinch (May 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
How is this any different than showing a woman who's going to birth at home a horrible video of a labor where there were complications??! This seems to be perpetuating fear a little too much for me even though I get what you're saying.

It's totally not the same thing because in a frontal crash car accident, ALL FF babies are going to be thrown forward. ALL rear facing ones are going to experience much less trauma. Unlike homebirth where MOST are going to come out fine and a few horror stories happen.

Here is a rear-facing video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qef1T...eature=related
Here is a forward-facing video:





Now ask yourself, WHY are you using a carseat? Is it to keep your child SAFE or just for show? If it's the former, then keep your child RF until they reach the limit and can no longer do so.


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JavaFinch* 
It's totally not the same thing because in a frontal crash car accident, ALL FF babies are going to be thrown forward. ALL rear facing ones are going to experience much less trauma. Unlike homebirth where MOST are going to come out fine and a few horror stories happen.

Also... while there are some isolated rare cases where it turns out that the mom and/or baby may have fared better if they'd been in the hospital rather than at home (and there's still no guarantees), for MOST cases, there are safety *benefits* to staying at home. There are not safety benefits to a child riding without a proper restraint. Either you don't need the restraint (because there's no crash), in which case it doesn't matter... or you do get in an accident, and your child is at SIGNIFICANTLY greater risk of severe injury if they're not properly restrained. There aren't really any shades of grey here.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
No, not really. It's a law. You can, at the very least, get cited and have to pay a fine if you turn your child around before they meet the minimum requirements...

So, no, there's not really a difference between a three-month-old and a ten-month-old? Regardless of the law, I see a huge developmental and physical difference between my 10-month old who can stand and walk and my friend's 3-month-old who can't even roll over yet - not to mention the head to body proportion starting to even out. That's all I was saying - there is a marked difference.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
Do you have a mirror for him? DS loved his when he was RF.

Yep!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JavaFinch* 
It's totally not the same thing because in a frontal crash car accident, ALL FF babies are going to be thrown forward. ALL rear facing ones are going to experience much less trauma. Unlike homebirth where MOST are going to come out fine and a few horror stories happen.

You're missing my point - MOST car rides come out fine too (relatively, of course). But, I also get the importance of the video and being educated about it. I just don't like making people feel scared and planting a seed in their head that something horrible might happen to their DC. When a friend is about to go on a trip via plane, you don't send her airplane crash videos... ya know?

If we are all so hell bent on the utmost safety, then we should not even be getting our babe into a car in the first place (or even breathing our air, for that matter).

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JavaFinch* 
Now ask yourself, WHY are you using a carseat? Is it to keep your child SAFE or just for show? If it's the former, then keep your child RF until they reach the limit and can no longer do so.

Umm, I don't even know how to answer that. OF COURSE I'm not using a car seat for show (wha?) and I don't agree that turning your child forward facing at 1 year is not safe. Yes, we can all agree that it's safer, but rear facing is not UNsafe.


----------



## JavaFinch (May 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
So, no, there's not really a difference between a three-month-old and a ten-month-old? Regardless of the law, I see a huge developmental and physical difference between my 10-month old who can stand and walk and my friend's 3-month-old who can't even roll over yet - not to mention the head to body proportion starting to even out. That's all I was saying - there is a marked difference.

Yep!

You're missing my point - MOST car rides come out fine too (relatively, of course). But, I also get the importance of the video and being educated about it. I just don't like making people feel scared and planting a seed in their head that something horrible might happen to their DC. When a friend is about to go on a trip via plane, you don't send her airplane crash videos... ya know?

If we are all so hell bent on the utmost safety, then we should not even be getting our babe into a car in the first place (or even breathing our air, for that matter).

Umm, I don't even know how to answer that. OF COURSE I'm not using a car seat for show (wha?) and I don't agree that turning your child forward facing at 1 year is not safe. Yes, we can all agree that it's safer, but rear facing is not UNsafe.

Most car rides turn out fine - true. But using that logic, why use a carseat at all? If we're talking about IF in the event of an accident your 1-yr-old is FF vs. RF, the damage to his body are greatly increased if he is FF. So that is what I'm talking about - if intent of the carseat is to keep a child SAFE, then it needs to be RF as long as possible.

When we choose a carseat, we don't want one that is recalled, would we? But even with the recalled seats, the LIKELIHOOD that your child will be in an accident and the defective part will actually fail is probably low. Likewise, the chance of crashing into something in your car is pretty low, but if it DOES happen, don't you want your child safe?

What I meant by 'for show' is what is a carseat for? It's for protection in the event of an accident. Surely if you knew for SURE that tomorrow you were going to hit a tree going 40 MPH and you had already turned the carseat FF, wouldn't you turn it around if you KNEW it was going to happen? So why wouldn't you leave it RF permanently IF the point of the carseat is to protect your child? Because if you're just going by the argument that 'Well, I'll probably never get into an accident," then why not skip the carseat all together?


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ironica* 
Also... while there are some isolated rare cases where it turns out that the mom and/or baby may have fared better if they'd been in the hospital rather than at home (and there's still no guarantees), for MOST cases, there are safety *benefits* to staying at home. *There are not safety benefits to a child riding without a proper restraint.* Either you don't need the restraint (because there's no crash), in which case it doesn't matter... or you do get in an accident, and your child is at SIGNIFICANTLY greater risk of severe injury if they're not properly restrained. There aren't really any shades of grey here.


I really think the bit that I bolded above is KEY.

There are NO safety benefits to turning a carseat early.

There can be some convenience benefits, but they are *conveniences*, not *safety* issues.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

Another vote for no. My daughter RF til 2.5yrs and my son until 1.5...our new babe will also go til the weight limit facing rear.


----------



## happy2bamama (Apr 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JavaFinch* 
Most car rides turn out fine - true. But using that logic, why use a carseat at all? If we're talking about IF in the event of an accident your 1-yr-old is FF vs. RF, the damage to his body are greatly increased if he is FF. So that is what I'm talking about - if intent of the carseat is to keep a child SAFE, then it needs to be RF as long as possible.

When we choose a carseat, we don't want one that is recalled, would we? But even with the recalled seats, the LIKELIHOOD that your child will be in an accident and the defective part will actually fail is probably low. Likewise, the chance of crashing into something in your car is pretty low, but if it DOES happen, don't you want your child safe?

What I meant by 'for show' is what is a carseat for? It's for protection in the event of an accident. Surely if you knew for SURE that tomorrow you were going to hit a tree going 40 MPH and you had already turned the carseat FF, wouldn't you turn it around if you KNEW it was going to happen? So why wouldn't you leave it RF permanently IF the point of the carseat is to protect your child? Because if you're just going by the argument that 'Well, I'll probably never get into an accident," then why not skip the carseat all together?

I really do understand that rear-facing is safer than front-facing (I watched the video clips), BUT... you're making it sound like turning your child to the front is the same thing as using no car seat at all, which of course, is NOT! "Why not skip the car seat all together?" - that makes no sense!
We all know that a car seat - regardless of which way it's facing - is ridiculously more safe than no car seat at all. I know what you're getting at, why not be the MOST safe you can be, but if that's the case, then why get in your car at all? Really, I do get where you're coming from - I am definitely not turning DS before a year and in fact, I've completely reassessed turning DS forward before the 33lb. maximum - but I also don't think that front facing before the weight/height maximum is the same as using nothing.


----------



## hipmummy (May 25, 2007)

No, Ds is over 20 and over one and my safety officer said to go by the car seat guidelines, therefor until ds is 33 pounds or 35 inches, he is not going to be forward facing.


----------



## thepeach80 (Mar 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
I really do understand that rear-facing is safer than front-facing (I watched the video clips), BUT... you're making it sound like turning your child to the front is the same thing as using no car seat at all, which of course, is NOT! "Why not skip the car seat all together?" - that makes no sense!

There are people on this thread though whose posts make you wonder why use a seat at all though, it's not something I think that was directed at you necessarily 100%. People have talked about how we didn't have carseats when we were younger and why have we become so uber-safe and how they choose to put their children in danger by turning them early, it makes you wonder if they don't use one just b/c they are supposed to/have to.

It is utterly ridiculous though to even say things like don't get in your car at all or even breathe. Come on! I have to drive, there's no way around it and well not breathing isn't really an option. Since I do have to drive (and breathe), I choose to be as safe as I possibly can w/ my kids in the car. Since we know cars are dangerous and that crashes are one of the top killers of children, I don't understand purposefully putting your small child at risk w/ putting them ffing. I am happy to hear you are reasessing though.


----------



## JavaFinch (May 26, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
I really do understand that rear-facing is safer than front-facing (I watched the video clips), BUT... you're making it sound like turning your child to the front is the same thing as using no car seat at all, which of course, is NOT! "Why not skip the car seat all together?" - that makes no sense!
We all know that a car seat - regardless of which way it's facing - is ridiculously more safe than no car seat at all. I know what you're getting at, why not be the MOST safe you can be, but if that's the case, then why get in your car at all? Really, I do get where you're coming from - I am definitely not turning DS before a year and in fact, I've completely reassessed turning DS forward before the 33lb. maximum - but I also don't think that front facing before the weight/height maximum is the same as using nothing.

Again, I'll try to be more clear, my guess is almost ANY parent would, if they KNEW they were going to crash and they had seen those videos, would turn their child back to RF or keep them RF if they were still within the weight limit. The only reason a parent who has seen those videos and is aware of the harm that can come *unnecessarily* from FF drives with their 20-lb one-year-old FF is because they think "I won't get into an accident" - and my point was if one is going to make safety decisions based on the assumption that they will never get into an accident, then why even use a carseat? That is my point. My point was not to say FF is just as bad as no carseat in an accident.

As for 'why even drive at all' - well, I'm sure most of us could always improve on safety. Not everyone can afford the BEST carseat or the 5-star safety rated car. We make the safest choices with what we have. And leaving a carseat RF seems like a very easy, ZERO cost way to do that.

I'm glad you're rethinking things. I turned my son around at 20lbs/1 year on advice of my doctor back in 2000 and I am just so thankful we didn't get in an accident! My son has hydrocephalus and has a disporportionately large head. If any child should have stayed RF, it is him. I shudder to think of his poor neck had an accident occurred. I know better now and will not make that mistake again. I'm annoyed that my ped gives such sloppy, mainstream advice to patients (including telling BF moms to wean at a year, telling moms of babies to CIO, etc. = luckily for DS I didn't listen to that advice)


----------



## thepeach80 (Mar 16, 2004)

I had a 24# 7 mos old come in to my check today ffing b/c mom's ped said it was o.k. after 20#.







: He was able to leave in a brand new seat, RFING!


----------



## momsadvice (Oct 9, 2007)

You are going to do what you want no matter what anyone says. But think about it why would there be laws governing this and so much money put into testing, researching, and so forth if it was not best for your child. yes while i agree not everything should be governed by the government some of it may be for the better good of the people and innocent.


----------



## bechand0128 (Mar 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thepeach80* 
I had a 24# 7 mos old come in to my check today ffing b/c mom's ped said it was o.k. after 20#.







: He was able to leave in a brand new seat, RFING!

Stupid pediatrician. My ds2's ped said that not everyone could afford those "fancy seats" that could last 30 lbs or more. I looked her straight in the face, and said, "Oh, I know! There are some families that just cannot spring for a $40 Scenera from WM. Thank God the SafeKids Coalition here will give out FREE seats that RF all the way to 30 lbs." She was actually a fairly decent pediatrician too - okay w/ delayed/no vax, supportive of ext bfing (was a pumper herself, her dh was a sahd), used cloth diapers, didn't encourage CIO...

I'm glad you were able to keep this kiddo safe!

ETA: I guess I thought I had responded to this post previously. Obviously not. My ds2 is still rear-facing at 19 months. He either sits cross legged or props his feet up on the seat behind him. He doesn't seem bothered. Would I forward face him? NO WAY! I'd sooner have a broken leg than broken neck - Broken leg, cast it, Broken neck, casket. My elder ds rear-faced off and on until just after his 3rd birthday, and is still harnessed. As someone else said - they wouldn't put this much money into testing, researching, etc, for me not to follow their best practice recommendations. Best Practice recommendations, as we were taught in our CPST class - rear-face to the limits of the seat, forward-face to the limits of that seat, booster from 4/40 lbs until the child passes the 5 step test. My children deserve the best I can give them!


----------



## thepeach80 (Mar 16, 2004)

Yup, we would never not give a child a safe seat b/c the parent's couldn't afford it! We don't advertise free seats, but if you need one, you can get one for whatever $ you do have. We were able to get 6 seats yesterday that weren't any good anymore, that's a LOT for us in one check. So we had that many seats go out as well. It was a good day.







The day that makes me really happy that I do what I do.

My DH's cousin can't afford another seat for their baby, so he's getting a new Scenera for his birthday on Saturday.







This will let me have my Scenera back.


----------



## *Karen* (Jul 28, 2006)

Absolutely not. Not ever. My 18 month old is still RFing. It is about spinal development. My kid's neck is way too important for me to turn it around for any reason at all.


----------



## *Karen* (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JavaFinch* 
Again, I'll try to be more clear, my guess is almost ANY parent would, if they KNEW they were going to crash and they had seen those videos, would turn their child back to RF or keep them RF if they were still within the weight limit. The only reason a parent who has seen those videos and is aware of the harm that can come *unnecessarily* from FF drives with their 20-lb one-year-old FF is because they think "I won't get into an accident" - and my point was if one is going to make safety decisions based on the assumption that they will never get into an accident, then why even use a carseat? That is my point. My point was not to say FF is just as bad as no carseat in an accident.

Sadly this is not the case. I would think so too. But so many parents just don't care at all. There is nothing that anyone could do to make me turn DS around, but some parents EVEN AFTER knowing do it anyway. I REALLY don't understand it at all.







:


----------



## AndrewsMother (Jul 30, 2007)

No way!!! My almost 19 month old rides rear facing. I do not understand why turning a child FF is such a big deal. I understand that some children must be turned around for the safety of the driver(screaming child) but otherwise what is the big deal?

I am slightly annoyed that my one year old is in Atlanta with my mother riding front facing as she could not figure out how to correctly install the seat rear facing. He flew with family so I was not able to install the seat.

My son might be physically able to withstand a FF crash, but why would I take the risk until I have to turn him around?


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

In regards to fear regarding homebirths vs. car seat safety. IMO, your desire to have your child forward facing DOES NOT CHANGE PHYSICS. The laws of physics don't bend to your will. You can try to drive safely, but you don't control the weather, the idiots on the road, etc.

However, I feel that the desire to have a safe homebirth can be affected by your will. You plan, prepare, read books, hire a midwife, go to childbirth classes, etc. It's totally not the same thing.

I am not an uber safety concious person. We don't use many baby gates, for instance. I would rather teach my babies to climb stairs. I let my 3 yo help me cook, at the stove sometimes, and "chop" veggies with a butter knife. I also let her play in our fenced back yard w/o my supervision sometimes. But she will be properly restrained, according to best practice guidelines, not state laws, which here in Michigan are awful.

So you only drive once every 2 or 3 weeks? That does not mean that you are less likely to get hit THAT DAY than anyone else on the road THAT DAY. Ask my mom and sister, who nearly died on a beautiful sunny July day during a 20 min drive to my grandma's. I don't think they planned on hitting a tree. They were just going to Grandma's, so my sister got to ride in the front seat. She was 7 and hit her head because she wasn't properly restrained and had emergency brain surgery.

Your will does not change the laws of physics. Sorry.


----------



## velvpitt (May 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *happy2bamama* 
and turn your baby's carseat facing forward if they meet the weight limit, but were two months shy of being 1-year-old? Why is there a weight AND age requirement? Is there something that could magically happen in those two months that would make it more safe for your child to ride facing forward?

Thoughts? TIA

i would keep the baby facing backwards until 1 yr.
orthopedic surgeons are much better at fixing broken legs (from facing backwards) than neurosurgeons are at fixing brains


----------



## Anastasiya (Jun 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *acp* 
But I do think the fact that I don't often live in paranoia of the worst-case scenarios (child abduction, SIDS, fatal car or bus crashes) happening to me make me a little more likely to do things like tummy sleep, ride the bus with DD, etc.

For one year olds and up, car accidents are the number one - the Number One - *THE NUMBER ONE* - killer of children.

It _should_ be taken more seriously than SIDS, tummy sleeping, soft-cheese eating while pregnant, child abduction, etc... It's something that kills more children than many of these things combined, and it's one thing that we parents actually have the power to control to a very real degree.

Just my two pennies.


----------



## poetesss (Mar 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sancta* 
For one year olds and up, car accidents are the number one - the Number One - *THE NUMBER ONE* - killer of children.

Yeah that. In the US at least, it's number one. So it's hardly paranoia to be uber-careful about all aspects of car seat safety. I'll tummy sleep my babe, let him do daring stunts, lick raw-egg cake batter, whatever...but car seat safety is *non negotiable* for me.


----------

