# Keep kids rear facing till age 4 message hits the mainstream media



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

I was sitting watching a little GMA this morning and was pleasantly surprised when I saw this segment about how much safer it is to keep kids rear facing till age 4.







: It was based on a British study that was released today.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Oh, finally. USA is starting to catch on!
Great news!
I was wondering why she didn't mention high-back booster in that last part there, but ok.

And yeah, I live in a scandinavian country where RF-ing is the standard up til 4-5 (maybe even 6) yo. and then HHB. And it's been recomended for years and years, at least as longs as 8-10 years probably. And not only sugested to be safer like the lady said in the video, but proven to be many, many times safer. There's really no doubt here, keep them RF-ing as long as possible. But we also have seats to make it happen with, I dunno what the highest RF-ing seat goes to in the States, but here it's up to 25 kg. (55 pounds 2 oz).


----------



## soxthecatrules (Oct 20, 2008)

Riverscout....you beat me to the punch.

Now maybe my family won't look at me like I've grown a 3rd eye in the middle of my forehead!! Way to go GMA!


----------



## aprildawn (Apr 1, 2004)

I have a purely logistical question about rear facing children beyond 1 year. When we turned both of our girls around their legs were already scrunching up to fit since they couldn't hang off the end of the seat. If your child is 2-4 yrs old, where do you put their feet/legs in a rear-facing situation? My girls are tall and I just can't imagine it. They'd have their knees in their face if they were rear facing.

I'm genuinely curious. I've wondered about this ever since hearing on MDC and elsewhere that it's safer to keep them rear facing longer.


----------



## Astrogirl (Oct 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aprildawn* 
I have a purely logistical question about rear facing children beyond 1 year. When we turned both of our girls around their legs were already scrunching up to fit since they couldn't hang off the end of the seat. If your child is 2-4 yrs old, where do you put their feet/legs in a rear-facing situation? My girls are tall and I just can't imagine it. They'd have their knees in their face if they were rear facing.

I'm genuinely curious. I've wondered about this ever since hearing on MDC and elsewhere that it's safer to keep them rear facing longer.

Me too. I'm sure its safer, I have no doubt in my mind about that. I am also sure its safer for all of us to sit in car seats rearfacing (assuming you could get one made where your legs lay appropriately)....or not drive at all. I just wonder when its going to end - At 2 yrs old RF is safer than FF, at 3 yrs old its safer than FF, at....8 years old....etc.

I'm really surprised to hear that about the Scandinavian countries though. I live in Germany and always considered the Americans to be a lot less lax than the Europeans on the issues of car seats. Maybe things have changed since I last tried to buy an infant car seat, but I was forced to turn my first child FF a lot younger than I wanted to because of my lack of options for RF car seats. I actually had to bring back car seats from the U.S. to get the RF for longer.


----------



## soxthecatrules (Oct 20, 2008)

From what I've learned (mainly on this board) is that bent legs don't break. But, a child bracing them for impact will be more likely to have his/her legs broke. Many European countries are more safety conscious in this regard than the U.S. Across the ocean they have seats that RF to 50-55lbs. In the US we finally have one that will RF to 40lbs. Once the west coast & midwestern people finish getting out of bed this morning I'm sure you'll get more responses.

FWIW....DS is 2.5yrs, FF in a Nautilus. We went on a long trip a couple of weeks ago and probably 3/4 of the time his legs were bent just like a child ERF would.


----------



## indie (Jun 16, 2003)

Legs are no big deal. My kids put their feet up on the back of the car's seat. I've seen kids cross their legs. I've never heard of a documented case where rear facing caused injury to the legs but either way, its better a broken leg than a broken neck.


----------



## katie9143 (Oct 3, 2006)

oh im gonna post this on FB....i have lotsa mommy friends that think im crazy! i would so LOVE on of those european seats!! my 36lber is ffing now and only 2.5


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aprildawn* 
I have a purely logistical question about rear facing children beyond 1 year. When we turned both of our girls around their legs were already scrunching up to fit since they couldn't hang off the end of the seat. If your child is 2-4 yrs old, where do you put their feet/legs in a rear-facing situation? My girls are tall and I just can't imagine it. They'd have their knees in their face if they were rear facing.

I'm genuinely curious. I've wondered about this ever since hearing on MDC and elsewhere that it's safer to keep them rear facing longer.

I'm just the person to ask then, I have my two 5.5 yo. RF-ing still.
One is about 45 inches and the other about 46 inches long. My girl has really long legs. They cross their legs, or have them out on the sides.
It's really not a big deal at all, they never complain. It is not dangerous at all.


----------



## aprildawn (Apr 1, 2004)

My question isn't about the safety of their legs, but about the logistics of where their legs go. My girls would literally have knees in their faces if they were rear facing. I'm not exaggerating. I guess they could sit with their legs criss-crossed. My oldest just turned 7 and her feet hang about 6 inches from the floor of the car when in a high-back booster. (She's tall enough to ride most roller coasters. She afraid to ride them, but could because she's tall enough.) But according to one of the PPs, if we lived in parts of Europe she'd be rear facing as well. I just need help seeing a picture of where their legs/feet *go* when rear facing...that's all.









ETA: thanks pixiekisses. we cross-posted!


----------



## MomOf3boyz (Oct 21, 2008)

I saw the news piece as well and wasn't as thrilled. I agree with the others concerned for the child's comfort and in my DS 3's case worried about hip displacement (He already has hip issues). Even the child in the segment couldn't get into the seat and decently place his legs, I know because I was watching to see what the little guy did. I know that for babies it's bad to put them in jumpers or baby bjorns where their hips are forced to be in an unnatural position for a prolonged period of time. If a child is scrunching to fit their legs while they sit in a car for a prolonged period of time I don't see a major difference. Yes a child could try to move their legs in the seat, but it wouldn't be an easy or natural movement.

For those that it works for, great, I just don't see us shifting my 3 year old right now.

My youngest DS, now 14 months, is still rear facing, and he will stay there until his legs get scrunched and he's contorting himself to be rear facing. Once he reaches that point I am still going to move him forward facing. I hope that this study stops parents from automatically facing their children forward when they turn one.

For those making it work til your child is older - good for you!


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Most long-legged rearfacing kids sit criss-cross-applesauce or hang their legs off the side of the seat. I agree it doesn't look all that comfortable to me, but I'm old and fat and kids are amazingly flexible and seem happy in all sorts of positions that I wouldn't be!


----------



## RunnerDuck (Sep 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
I'm just the person to ask then, I have my two 5.5 yo. RF-ing still.
One is about 45 inches and the other about 46 inches long. My girl has really long legs. They cross their legs, or have them out on the sides.
It's really not a big deal at all, they never complain. It is not dangerous at all.

I can see the legs going over the side if you only had one kid in a center spot... but it looks like you have 5 kids from your sig?? So don't you have a lot of car seats smashed together? What are you driving that they have room for their legs to flop over?

I have 3 car seats in a row, no ones legs are going anywhere.

My girls are rearfacing and probably will be until the leg thing gets ridiculous. They're still tiny with tons of room at 14 months...


----------



## Mrsboyko (Nov 13, 2007)

My DD actually stretches her legs out to the headrest whie RF and sleeps that way. Or she crosses them. Once the seat is fastened she is fine, but getting it buckled can get a little tricky, especially if she is fight it.

Oh, and FWIW, we have DD RF in a boulevard and an infant in a bucket next to her so the 3rd seat is open for another adut. We have a boneville.


----------



## soxthecatrules (Oct 20, 2008)

IMHO....I know the idea of RF to 3, 4, 5 years old sounds great. But, I think our real focus right now should be teaching and convincing parents to at least RF until 2 or to the RF limits of the seat. That should be the real focus right now. My 2 cents worth.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soxthecatrules* 
In the US we finally have one that will RF to 40lbs.

We do?







Which one?


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soxthecatrules* 
IMHO....I know the idea of RF to 3, 4, 5 years old sounds great. But, I think our real focus right now should be teaching and convincing parents to at least RF until 2 or to the RF limits of the seat. That should be the real focus right now. My 2 cents worth.

I completely agree. Someone mentioned that in the segment...to keep them RF to the limits of the seat.

While I don't think the segment was perfect, I was really glad to see something that got the message out there to so many people to not turn their kids at one year and 20 pounds.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Graco MyRide 65.


----------



## jillmamma (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
We do?







Which one?

It is the Graco MyRide65

My DD is almost 4 and still RF. She puts her legs over the sides, up the back of the seat, or in a diamond shape. But this is awesome to have something else to show the grandparents that think I am nuts for keeping her RF still.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

It would be nice if we actually had seats here that would get most kids rfing to 4...sigh!


----------



## Funny Face (Dec 7, 2006)

I only found out about the RF issue a few months ago.









I had no idea that turning them around at 1 year wasn't the best thing to do. I couldn't believe I'd never head anything about it. I have no idea how I missed it. I assumed that the weight and heights on the box were the safe way to go.

Dd is 3.5 and in a booster seat. We had bought the booster before I knew how much safer the 5 point harness is and now we are in the process of saving up for a new car seat for her.

I really wish I would have known this sooner.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Funny Face* 
I only found out about the RF issue a few months ago.









I had no idea that turning them around at 1 year wasn't the best thing to do. I couldn't believe I'd never head anything about it. I have no idea how I missed it. I assumed that the weight and heights on the box were the safe way to go.

Dd is 3.5 and in a booster seat. We had bought the booster before I knew how much safer the 5 point harness is and now we are in the process of saving up for a new car seat for her.

I really wish I would have known this sooner.









s:
We do the best we can with what we know, and once we know better, we do better. Hopefully you can save for a Nautilus for your DD and she'll be harnessed for a good, long time


----------



## FernG (Feb 14, 2008)

Does anyone have the reference for the BMJ article ABC referenced? I'm looking for it, but I haven't found it yet. Thanks!


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *FernG* 
Does anyone have the reference for the BMJ article ABC referenced? I'm looking for it, but I haven't found it yet. Thanks!

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...urcetype=HWCIT


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

Thanks for posting this. I put links to the story and car-seat.org on my Facebook profile.


----------



## pammysue (Jan 24, 2004)

This is from the article for those concerned about legs (bolding mine):

Quote:

Concerns that parents may have about using rear facing seats at an older age include motion sickness and the comfort and safety of the child's legs. However, *the leg is among the most frequently injured body regions for children in forward facing seats.*


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I just posted this to my facebook, too.

My 2.5 yo is tall and has long legs, yet he looks pretty dang comfy rf-ing and has never complained. Same for my 3rd child before he switched.

How funny about that old century infant seat in the pic/video on the first page, though.


----------



## Cinder (Feb 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
Most long-legged rearfacing kids sit criss-cross-applesauce

Yep, but it's also how my daughter sits forward facing...and how she sits on the couch, the floor, whatever...me too actually.


----------



## FernG (Feb 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mommybree* 
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...urcetype=HWCIT

Thanks!


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RunnerDuck* 
I can see the legs going over the side if you only had one kid in a center spot... but it looks like you have 5 kids from your sig?? So don't you have a lot of car seats smashed together? What are you driving that they have room for their legs to flop over?

I have 3 car seats in a row, no ones legs are going anywhere. (..)

We ride with me, the baby and little miss (both RF-ing) in the 1st back row, so I sit in the middle, and there's room for her legs on the side, or crossed, whatever she wants. The other 5.5 yo. RF-ing in the front, with space for his legs then obv., and the oldest (10.5 yo.) in his HHB and the 3.5 yo. RF-ing in the 2nd back row, with place for their legs then.
We need to go in a big car when we drive anywhere.









(And before anyone says anything, studys here (several scandinavian countrys, that are advanced in car seat/kids in car safety) are very clear that there is no safety difference between front/back seat, as long as there is no airbags active of course, and the studys are on RF-ing seats as far as I know. )

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
It would be nice if we actually had seats here that would get most kids rfing to 4...sigh!

Oh, you know, the market here for RF-ing seats that are higher and have higher weight limits literarely exploded when the focus on keeping kids RF-ing longer became bigger. So, if the focus increases, the car seat manufacterers will follow suit!


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
Oh, you know, the market here for RF-ing seats that are higher and have higher weight limits literarely exploded when the focus on keeping kids RF-ing longer became bigger. So, if the focus increases, the car seat manufacterers will follow suit!









Hopefully. But if they don't allow the rfing foot thing here, it'll never happen.


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
Hopefully. But if they don't allow the rfing foot thing here, it'll never happen.

What do you mean "if they don't allow the rfing foot thing here?" Is there some law or recommendation about where feet can go?


----------



## claddaghmom (May 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aprildawn* 
My question isn't about the safety of their legs, but about the logistics of where their legs go. My girls would literally have knees in their faces if they were rear facing. I'm not exaggerating. I guess they could sit with their legs criss-crossed. My oldest just turned 7 and her feet hang about 6 inches from the floor of the car when in a high-back booster. (She's tall enough to ride most roller coasters. She afraid to ride them, but could because she's tall enough.) But according to one of the PPs, if we lived in parts of Europe she'd be rear facing as well. I just need help seeing a picture of where their legs/feet *go* when rear facing...that's all.









ETA: thanks pixiekisses. we cross-posted!

nak

i think crosslegged is the most comfortable. dd already naturally crosses her legs b/c she has sensitive feet and doesn't like them touching the back of the seat.

i have also seen photos where the children put their legs over the sides.

have you tried googling? a lot of safety forum members have photos of their erf children in their siggies. and youtube has a video that shows a variety of erf children too.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
What do you mean "if they don't allow the rfing foot thing here?" Is there some law or recommendation about where feet can go?

On seats in sweden that rf to 55lbs, there is a foot thing (dunno what it's techincally called) that goes from the back of the seat to the floor. It keeps the seat from overrotating towards the floor in an accident. The NHSTA does not allow those here. So there really is no way to get a high weight rfing seat, imo, if they don't because heavy kids are going to cause the seat to rotate too far down.


----------



## KayleeZoo (Apr 8, 2003)

Quote:

The NHSTA does not allow those here. So there really is no way to get a high weight rfing seat, imo, if they don't because heavy kids are going to cause the seat to rotate too far down.
Thus the reason that so many more people are importing Swedish seats from www.carseat.se to use here in the USA


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
On seats in sweden that rf to 55lbs, there is a foot thing (dunno what it's techincally called) that goes from the back of the seat to the floor. It keeps the seat from overrotating towards the floor in an accident. The NHSTA does not allow those here. So there really is no way to get a high weight rfing seat, imo, if they don't because heavy kids are going to cause the seat to rotate too far down.

Thanks for clarifying! I wonder why they don't allow them. Weird.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jillmamma* 
It is the Graco MyRide65

My DD is almost 4 and still RF. She puts her legs over the sides, up the back of the seat, or in a diamond shape. But this is awesome to have something else to show the grandparents that think I am nuts for keeping her RF still.

That's awesome, I know what I'll be buying for the new baby. Well I'll most likey put new baby in the marathon that we have now and move DS2 over to that since he's near the RF weight limit on the marathon.


----------



## katie9143 (Oct 3, 2006)

wow i want one of those...wonder if dh is going overseas anytime soon....


----------



## KayleeZoo (Apr 8, 2003)

Quote:

wow i want one of those...wonder if dh is going overseas anytime soon....
Carseat.se ships to the USA all the time


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Please do not let your kids hang their legs over the sides. If you are t-boned in a crash, their legs are gone.


----------



## Polliwog (Oct 29, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
Please do not let your kids hang their legs over the sides. If you are t-boned in a crash, their legs are gone.

Do you have any research that supports that? Are you a carseat safety tech?


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

I am not aware of any data that supports the claim that "legs are gone" in a side-impact crash; however, some crashes are severe enough that injury is unavoidable. In a side-impact crash, a rear-facing carseat protects the head, neck, and spine far better than a forward-facing carseat. I know it doesn't feel good to decide which parts of your child should be at risk, but if I had to make the choice, I'd choose to protect the head/neck/spine.


----------



## sunnymw (Feb 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Polliwog* 
Do you have any research that supports that? Are you a carseat safety tech?









:

I can see it being a problem IF, say, they had their one leg all the way between the seat and the door AND were T-boned on that side. Of course, still not as bad as the leg injuries you'd get FFing


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Polliwog* 
Do you have any research that supports that? Are you a carseat safety tech?

I'm an RN and just finished a trauma nurse core course (TNCC) n which we discussed child safety and they touched on this.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
I'm an RN and just finished a trauma nurse core course (TNCC) n which we discussed child safety and they touched on this.

Hmmm, I'd like to see some data to support that. As mentioned, over the sides while rf is still safer than ff.

-Angela


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
I am not aware of any data that supports the claim that "legs are gone" in a side-impact crash; however, some crashes are severe enough that injury is unavoidable. In a side-impact crash, a rear-facing carseat protects the head, neck, and spine far better than a forward-facing carseat. I know it doesn't feel good to decide which parts of your child should be at risk, but if I had to make the choice, I'd choose to protect the head/neck/spine.

Why does this have to be a choice? Protect the legs and the head/neck/spine. Talk with your kids about keeping their legs off the sides of the car seat. It's safer. There are huge vessels in the legs; this isn't a matter of protecting a leg from a simple fracture.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

You're right; it doesn't have to be either-or. But kids who are still young enough to be RFing often don't have the best impulse control, and I would still prefer to take the chance that their legs might be in the "wrong" position at the moment of impact than to have them FFing.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
Why does this have to be a choice? Protect the legs and the head/neck/spine. Talk with your kids about keeping their legs off the sides of the car seat. It's safer. There are huge vessels in the legs; this isn't a matter of protecting a leg from a simple fracture.

I really don't see this as terribly dangerous. Unless I see some research to support this, it's merely a theory of what possibly *could* happen.

Dd used to hang her legs over, I don't recall her being able to get them over to the degree that would endanger major vessels.

-Angela


----------



## geekgolightly (Apr 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I really don't see this as terribly dangerous. Unless I see some research to support this, it's merely a theory of what possibly *could* happen.

Dd used to hang her legs over, I don't recall her being able to get them over to the degree that would endanger major vessels.

-Angela

If her knee is out on the side and she's in a bad t-bone collision, then she can exsanguinate within a matter of minutes. Look, I hate to be so graphic, but it was actually brought up as a question to the director of surgical trauma at our hospital. He supported rear facing seats but warned us that this was going to start to be a problem. And when I came in this thread and saw people were doing exactly this, I spoke up. If you don't want to talk to your kids about it, that's your business, but it would be wise to do so.

The likelihood of being in a major collision are low, and a t-bone is only one type of collision, but as you're concerned enough to promote and use ff seats before most Americans have even heard about it, I assume that you would want to consider this as well.


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *geekgolightly* 
If her knee is out on the side and she's in a bad t-bone collision, then she can exsanguinate within a matter of minutes. Look, I hate to be so graphic, but it was actually brought up as a question to the director of surgical trauma at our hospital. He supported rear facing seats but warned us that this was going to start to be a problem. And when I came in this thread and saw people were doing exactly this, I spoke up. If you don't want to talk to your kids about it, that's your business, but it would be wise to do so.

This sounds to me like a doctor talking about a topic he knows nothing about. Everybody is worried about legs rear-facing when they first hear of it, but there is absolutely no data to show that legs are being injured in rear-facing seats. In fact, the data shows that forward-facing kids are at risk for leg injuries. If this were really an issue, then we would have data from both here in the United States, where there are kids who do rear-face beyond 1 year, plus data from Sweden, where the kids have rear-faced for decades.

Also, forward-facing kids' legs are right up against the side of the car with no shell protection in many seats. I've heard of broken legs, but not exsanguination from leg injuries to forward-facing kids. Is that something commonly seen with forward-facing kids? Because if the concern is no shell protection for legs, then we would be seeing this type of injury with forward-facing kids as well.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to encourage kids to keep their legs within their seats' shells while rear-facing, but I doubt that that doctor had crash test data or real world crash injury data to support such a statement.


----------



## mbhf (Jan 8, 2005)

I don't think geekgolightly is saying people should FF their kids to protect their legs, just that there is also a major risk to having the legs hanging over the side while RF. she has made no argument against ERF that I've seen.


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mbhf* 
I don't think geekgolightly is saying people should FF their kids to protect their legs, just that there is also a major risk to having the legs hanging over the side while RF. she has made no argument against ERF that I've seen.

I understand that, but there is still no evidence to support the statement that kids will bleed out from leg injuries while rear-facing with their legs not protected within a seat's shell. Legs outside a carseat shell would be damaged in forward-facing seats as well because most seats do not have shell protection for legs forward-facing. I'm just saying that if there was a risk to legs being outside of seat shells, then we would already see it both with kids rear-facing and forward-facing. There would be no spike in exsangunation via leg injuries if there aren't such injuries to begin with.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

I find it so amusing that so many people go on and on about how great Europe is about rearfacing, when it is not all of europe. It is Sweden. Most other european countries, including England, where this study came from, most babies from 9 months on are forward facing, because high weight rearfacing seats are simply not available. Also, the highweight rearfacing seats in sweden are designed differently than rearfacing seats in USA.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

oh and the seats sit back from the seat bight, which also helps with rearfacing of big kids,. (the erf seats in sweden)


----------



## Delicateflower (Feb 1, 2009)

How much movement happens in a crash? In the test videos I've seen, limbs fly around wildly. If their legs started out over the side, where would they be once the door was touching their seat? They would fly towards the door no matter where they started, wouldn't they? And how far sideways can they go? I know my children's RF seat has straps over the tops of the thigh, not around the hip, so they can't get their legs very wide apart at all.

Quote:

Legs outside a carseat shell would be damaged in forward-facing seats as well because most seats do not have shell protection for legs forward-facing.
But to crush them the seat in front would have to meet the back seat, and that's a lot harder to do than for the door to meet the side of the seat, isn't it?


----------



## Mommybree (Jul 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Delicateflower* 
But to crush them the seat in front would have to meet the back seat, and that's a lot harder to do than for the door to meet the side of the seat, isn't it?

I was referring to the legs being close to the door with no shell on the side of them to protect them in a T-bone accident. I sorry I'm not being very clear.


----------



## JayJay (Aug 1, 2008)

I would also be very hesitant in allowing the dangling of legs. I can totally see how a T-bone would impact a car, my mother having been in several accidents. Honestly, I do believe rear facing is a great idea, but would definitely want something like the link to the Swedish site had on it - those larger rear facing seats really float my boat


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I agree- limbs fly ALL over in a crash... A leg would have to really be wedged between the door and the seat to stay there- and kids couldn't get it there to start with.

I think we're guessing here. I would be interested in seeing even one case report of this actually happening.

-Angela


----------



## Ironica (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MomOf3boyz* 
I saw the news piece as well and wasn't as thrilled. I agree with the others concerned for the child's comfort and in my DS 3's case worried about hip displacement (He already has hip issues). Even the child in the segment couldn't get into the seat and decently place his legs, I know because I was watching to see what the little guy did. I know that for babies it's bad to put them in jumpers or baby bjorns where their hips are forced to be in an unnatural position for a prolonged period of time. If a child is scrunching to fit their legs while they sit in a car for a prolonged period of time I don't see a major difference. Yes a child could try to move their legs in the seat, but it wouldn't be an easy or natural movement.

Hip dysplasia is almost unheard of in cultures that consistently wear their babies, because baby's legs are usually in "froggie" position, with the knee level with or above the hip. This is a position that supports proper hip joint development, and is contrasted with the "parachute" leg-dangling of Snugl-type carriers and jumping toys.

In a rear-facing carseat, infants typically rest their legs with the knees out, in a modified version of this "froggie" position. By age three or so, they've probably started crossing their legs, putting them up against the seat back, or (gasp) dangling them... but they're also well past the age where hip joint malformations are likely to emerge.

A carseat isn't the *best* device for reinforcing proper hip joint development (and that's yet another reason why using baby buckets 18 hours a day isn't the greatest plan), but I don't see how RF or ERF is going to increase the risk of hip dysplasia.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I agree- limbs fly ALL over in a crash... A leg would have to really be wedged between the door and the seat to stay there- and kids couldn't get it there to start with.

I think we're guessing here. I would be interested in seeing even one case report of this actually happening.

-Angela

I have seen LOTS of reports of ffing kids dying or being seriously injured from neck injuries when ffing too young. I have yet to see ONE of a serious leg injury from side-impact while rearfacing.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2maya* 
I find it so amusing that so many people go on and on about how great Europe is about rearfacing, when it is not all of europe. It is Sweden.

It's absolutely more than Sweden. I live in a different scandinavian country, and it's the same her.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Hip displaysia and severe leg injuries from rear facing are simply not born out in the data. There is not record of one SINGLE severe leg injury from rear facing. The odds that a child's leg would be pinned between the door and a seat, causing severing of a major vessel, is very, very slim. Sure, it's possible. But we know that side impact crashes account for only 8% of crashes. And what are the odds that in that 8%, a child's leg is in such a position to be trapped between the door and the seat? It's far more likely that you will be involved in one of the 92% of crashes that are frontal, where rear facing will protect the head, neck, spine and legs. Leg injuries don't appear until children are forward facing. And with all due respect to your doctor supervisor, if this was a real risk, why aren't those of us who are CPST Instructors hearing anything about it? Why is there no data? Etc.?

As far as hip dysplaisa, I'm sure that there are children with hip problems who might be recommended to not sit rear facing. However, I suspect those situations are rare, few and far between. I rarely see my son sitting in a froggy position, with his feet up against the seat back and his knees in the air, he just crosses his legs in front of him, criss-cross-apple sauce.

This is all really simple, young children are safest rear facing, 5 times safer, in fact. Legs, hips, etc. are not an issue.


----------



## RoseDuperre (Oct 15, 2007)

This is the most depressing thing I've heard in, oh, I don't even know how long. AUGH!

Forgive me for not being thrilled about this, but Lily was an absolute NIGHTMARE in the car until we got her upright, forward facing carseat for her first birthday. The change has been such a dramatic improvement - and at last, we've been able to start going places! I can do grocery shopping during the day insted of waiting until DP gets home at 7 or 8 PM. I can go to mom's groups. I can go to the Y and use ChildWatch. For the last 2 months the world was starting to open up again, I was starting to feel like something resembling a PERSON again . . . and now this. Oh my GOD.

Great. Lily will be safer, wonderful, but she'll be motherless because *I* will blow my brains out from the cabin fever.

Forgive my rant. Life was really approaching utter unmanagability before we turned her seat around. If you haven't had a kid who cried nonstop in the car - forcing you to do CIO on wheels - then you don't know how much of a difference such an improvement can make.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

It may or may not help, but for a 1yo, even a RFing carseat can be installed fairly upright, not at the 45-degree angle some infant buckets require.


----------



## greenmama (Feb 8, 2002)

dd would have hated that. She desperately wanted to be able to see me and you know I had to keep singing or talking on all those long rides where I was out of sight.. I once had a four hour drive with my arm over the back of the front seat and the top of her car seat so that she could feel me for that long ride, I did it, but it certainly wasn't the safest drive ever. As she aged she would have been better able to understand, but I was glad to face her front once she was big enough and it was no where near four.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
It may or may not help, but for a 1yo, even a RFing carseat can be installed fairly upright, not at the 45-degree angle some infant buckets require.

This can make a HUGE difference. Unfortunately, parents don't realize they can install their RF seats much more upright; they frequently stick to the angle indicator on the seat. I didn't know about a more upright install until I read about it from some CPSTs online. I never would've found out otherwise! (And, thanks to all those techs, I'm now a tech!)


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

OP here. Just for the record, I turned my daughter FF at one year because she wasn't a fan of the car till then, and life changed for the better. She wasn't as horrible in the car RF as some kids I've heard about, but it was no picnic sometimes either. So I get that some might not want to RF any longer than the law currently requires.

That said, I think the vast majority of kids don't give a rats behind which way they face. My son doesn't seem to. And the fact is, it is much safer for small children to RF. What parents do with that information is their choice at the moment. I'm just glad the information is getting out there so parents can at least make an informed decision.


----------



## Lisa85 (May 22, 2006)

Wow, I'm shocked by all the misinformation in this thread. I expect that in my more mainstream forums, but not MDC....

-------------------------------

Which seat is that? And is the top of the shell actually tall enough for an average height 40lber?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *soxthecatrules* 
From what I've learned (mainly on this board) is that bent legs don't break. But, a child bracing them for impact will be more likely to have his/her legs broke. Many European countries are more safety conscious in this regard than the U.S. Across the ocean they have seats that RF to 50-55lbs. *In the US we finally have one that will RF to 40lbs.* Once the west coast & midwestern people finish getting out of bed this morning I'm sure you'll get more responses.

FWIW....DS is 2.5yrs, FF in a Nautilus. We went on a long trip a couple of weeks ago and probably 3/4 of the time his legs were bent just like a child ERF would.


------------------------

I'm so glad this study has came out and shown what we all already knew. Dd1 is still rfing at 32lbs and 3.5 years old. I hope she lasts a long time that way.

One thing to help with the leg room is to recline the vehicle seat (check your vehicle's owner manual to make sure you can). This gave dd1 a ton of more room. I'll see if I can get a pic and post it here.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

The MyRide's shell is equal to or slightly taller than that of a Britax Marathon. The Sunshine Kids Radians and Compass TrueFit's shells are taller.

I am not complaining, because I think this is a huge and important development in child passenger safety, but I believe the MyRide is better suited for chunky toddlers who would otherwise have to forward-face way too early than for average-size and -shape preschoolers.


----------



## kalamos23 (Apr 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *greenmama* 
dd would have hated that. She desperately wanted to be able to see me and you know I had to keep singing or talking on all those long rides where I was out of sight.. I once had a four hour drive with my arm over the back of the front seat and the top of her car seat so that she could feel me for that long ride, I did it, but it certainly wasn't the safest drive ever. As she aged she would have been better able to understand, but I was glad to face her front once she was big enough and it was no where near four.

Just as an fyi - if you can turn the airbags off in your car, you can move your RFing kiddo to the front pass. seat so they can see you. It is still safer than FFing and they do this in Sweden a lot. I think someone has already mentioned it, but just wanted to bring it up again because this seems to be the main complaint for wanting to FF earlier and I think it's a viable solution.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

That is not a legal choice in many states.


----------



## kalamos23 (Apr 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
The MyRide's shell is equal to or slightly taller than that of a Britax Marathon. The Sunshine Kids Radians and Compass TrueFit's shells are taller.

I am not complaining, because I think this is a huge and important development in child passenger safety, but I believe the MyRide is better suited for chunky toddlers who would otherwise have to forward-face way too early than for average-size and -shape preschoolers.

car-seat.org has tons of pic of the marathon and the MR65 together so you can see height. As a mom of a 30 lb. 10mo, I was VERY happy to see this seat come out.


----------



## kalamos23 (Apr 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
That is not a legal choice in many states.

http://www.iihs.org/laws/childrestraint.aspx

My bad - it says on the side which states you can or cannot do this in and under what restrictions.


----------



## Twinklefae (Dec 13, 2006)

For those wondering about what ERF looks like:

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum.aspx


----------



## chaoticzenmom (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RoseDuperre* 
This is the most depressing thing I've heard in, oh, I don't even know how long. AUGH!

Forgive me for not being thrilled about this, but Lily was an absolute NIGHTMARE in the car until we got her upright, forward facing carseat for her first birthday. The change has been such a dramatic improvement - and at last, we've been able to start going places! I can do grocery shopping during the day insted of waiting until DP gets home at 7 or 8 PM. I can go to mom's groups. I can go to the Y and use ChildWatch. For the last 2 months the world was starting to open up again, I was starting to feel like something resembling a PERSON again . . . and now this. Oh my GOD.

Great. Lily will be safer, wonderful, but she'll be motherless because *I* will blow my brains out from the cabin fever.

Forgive my rant. Life was really approaching utter unmanagability before we turned her seat around. If you haven't had a kid who cried nonstop in the car - forcing you to do CIO on wheels - then you don't know how much of a difference such an improvement can make.

I thought the same thing when I saw the segment. I thought "No, freakin' way am I waiting until 4!" I'll be lucky if we can make it to 1! My son screams from the time he gets into his carseat until he gets out of it. NONSTOP! He's almost 4 months old and I panic at the thought of having to put him into the car.

I just installed a new carseat that sits more upright today and we shall see if it makes a difference.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

My kid was a car screamer too at a young age--she would scream the entire time we were in the car, no matter if it was 5 minutes or 5 hours. She outgrew it and was RFing to 3.5. You can't really judge their future behavior based on how they are at 4 months old









ETA: you can see a picture of her RF'ing at 3.5 if you click on her name in my siggy


----------



## Adventuredad (Apr 23, 2008)

Glad to see this hit the main stream to give parents better information. Many think this is new information but it's far from new. The benefits have been known since 1965 and was discovered through space travel and also some extensive research in the military. It's no accident military transport planes had seats placed backwards ages ago. A Swedish researcher saw all this and though ti would work great for kids as well. You can read more about the background of how the rear facing thinking started in Sweden in 1965 here.

Swedes have been rear facing kid since 1965 and lead the world in research and usage. I sat rear facing in 1967 which I think is kind of cool The recommendation here is for all children to sit rear facing until at least age 4 which many parents follow. Many kids sit rear facing longer than this although rarely longer than 5.

This is largely possible because of the Europe certified Swedish seats which have a high seat shell and also a max allowed weight of 55 lbs. It's unusual not to be able to rear face a kid until at least age 4.

There are many questions about ERF, you can find many answers here and also some myths over here. Most of the concerns of ERF are myths and not connected to reality:

*Leg space:* Many parens are concerned about leg space, both out of convenience and safety. All research show that a child sitting rear facing is at least as safe (actually safer) than a forward facing child. Lower extremeity injuries are common among FF children. Not so among RF children.

I live in the land of rear facing until age 4. I have never, not even once, heard a child complain about leg space. Kids like to sit with bent legs and it's simply not an issue. It CAN happen that a child is comfortable but it's so unusual that it can be disregarded. Parents are worried about leg space, not children.

It's always possible to have severe injuries also with RF kids. A car hitting a parked car at 50 mph is a big problem regardless of how a child is sitting. Kids in Sweden who die in traffic accidents often do so in unsurvivable accidents. In 2007 for example, two children died during the whole year in ages 0-6 despite sitting RF. One car ended up upside down in a river and the other one got crushed by a truck. Tragic but children would have died regardless of safety precautions.

*Unhappy kids:* Kids are as happy sitting RF as FF. Kids sit upright and can see out without any problems from an early age. Some kids, like my daughter, don't like to sit still. My daughter has been a screamer since birth. At around age 20 months she calmed down somewhat and accepted sitting still in the car. It had nothing to do with RF or FF, she just hates sitting still.

Some kids might not like riding in a car, this has rarely anything to do with FF or RF. In my experience, installing a seat more upright can make a large difference in a case a child is unhappy.

*Car sick:* Some kids get car sick although it's very rare. This usually had little to do with RF or FF but in some cases it may help to put a child FF. I've seen this over here very rarely.

*ERF in different countries:* Extended rear facing is the norm in Sweden. To see a 3 year old child FF is unusual. Another country which does fairly well is Norway. They are behind Sweden but still practice ERF better than any other country. Then there is a huge gap to Denmark and then simply a black hole to the next countries. Finland, probably the country with the best educated people in the world are terrible with RF.

The rest of Europe is simply terrible with ERF, it's comparable with US. Most European countries turn kids FF at 9-12 months because they don't know any better. Go furhter south (hello Greece, Italy, Portugal, etc.) and many kids sit unrestrained just like Latin America. There is a large change going on and I can't tell you have many emails I get every day from parents in countries all over the wold asking about rear facing and wanting to buy Swedish seats. Change takes time so patience is required. We'll get there eventually.

*Safety difference:* The difference between RF and FF up to 2 years of age is 500%. When reading about rear facing in most counties the impression is that the difference is 2% so I understand parents don't care much. Safety difference is less than 500% at age 3-5 but still huge. It may be 250, 300% or 400%, it's impossible to say. It's very clear that there is still a huge difference even at age 4. This can for example bee see in Swedish research and what happens when kids are turned around at age 4-ish. Injury rates go WAY up.

So far, over 1 million RF seats have been used in Sweden. So far, not one single child has been killed in a correctly installed rear facing car seat. This is a pretty convincing case for rear facing past 12 months.

*Support leg in Swedish seats:* Today, most Swedish seats have a foot prop to stabilize seat even further. What people don't know is that most manufacturers also test their seats unofficially without foot prop in case parents would forget/disregard foot prop. Most seats therefore pass official testing without foot prop even though it's better to use one.

There are two Swedish seats which does not sue a foot prop, Brio Zento and Britax Two-Way. Two-Way is a very popular seat which is installed rock solid without foot prop. It's the most popular seat together with Britax Multi tech outside of Sweden due to the very high seat shell and 55 bls weight limit. It means easy rear facing to age 4-5

*Side impact collisions:* Collisions from the side account for about 25% of accidents but are the most severe and dangerous since cars have little protection. RF makes a huge difference. A child in a RF seat is pushed further into the seat while colliding providing excellent protection. A child in a FF seat has the head thrown forward leaving in completely exposed in a collisions.

Side impact crashed even at low speeds such as 20 mph can be very severe and deadly.

Quesions about rear facing? Email me at [email protected]

Have a nice weekend! (and sorry about the long post.....)


----------



## sarajane (Oct 20, 2004)

I'm a little confused on the law of "adult seat belt permissible" as per this link that was posted. http://www.iihs.org/laws/childrestraint.aspx#TX

On my state it says not permissible. Then on other states it says things like 8-15 years or something like that. What the heck does that mean? My 15 year old "child" would have to be in a car seat. That isn't very clear. I mean, if under a certain age we have to have them in a car seat, I get that but why would it say that and than say that an adult belt is not permissible. When is it ok by law? I don't get it.

Thanks. I hope my question makes sense.


----------



## queenjane (May 17, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sarajane* 
I'm a little confused on the law of "adult seat belt permissible" as per this link that was posted. http://www.iihs.org/laws/childrestraint.aspx#TX

On my state it says not permissible. Then on other states it says things like 8-15 years or something like that. What the heck does that mean? My 15 year old "child" would have to be in a car seat. That isn't very clear. I mean, if under a certain age we have to have them in a car seat, I get that but why would it say that and than say that an adult belt is not permissible. When is it ok by law? I don't get it.

Thanks. I hope my question makes sense.









http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/directo...n/pr060209.pdf

Children 8 and over can use the adult seatbelt. Children who are under 8 but meet the height requirement can use the adult seatbelt as well. Children who do not meet the height requirement but have reached 8 yrs old age can use the adult seatbelt.

Katherine


----------



## riverscout (Dec 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sarajane* 
I'm a little confused on the law of "adult seat belt permissible" as per this link that was posted. http://www.iihs.org/laws/childrestraint.aspx#TX

On my state it says not permissible. Then on other states it says things like 8-15 years or something like that. What the heck does that mean? My 15 year old "child" would have to be in a car seat. That isn't very clear. I mean, if under a certain age we have to have them in a car seat, I get that but why would it say that and than say that an adult belt is not permissible. When is it ok by law? I don't get it.

Thanks. I hope my question makes sense.









TBH, I think that info is pretty poorly presented. I looked up the specific law in my state to get more accurate info.

I _think_ that "not permissible" thing applies only the the children covered under the states child safety law. For example, in my state children under 16 are covered by the law, so in that column it says 8 to 15 because children over 8 can use a seat belt only. But if your states law only covers say up to 7, then that column would say "not permissible" meaning children under 7 may not use a seat belt because they must be in a car seat booster. If that makes any sense at all.







:

Either way, just look up the exact law to get clarification.


----------



## sarajane (Oct 20, 2004)

I see, thanks!


----------



## KayleeZoo (Apr 8, 2003)

Great post, AdventureDad


----------



## kalamos23 (Apr 11, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *riverscout* 
TBH, I think that info is pretty poorly presented. I looked up the specific law in my state to get more accurate info.

I agree, it's not the best, you should just look up your state's laws on car seats and belts. I posted it more because it has a brief overview of all of the states' laws in a somewhat easy to read manner.

Great post, AdventureDad!!


----------



## mnm4242 (Mar 30, 2009)

Great info guys! My daughter is 13 months and 22 lbs. At her one year check up I just mentioned to her that the car seat rule had changed and that we are supposed to keep child rear facing till they were 2. I had read it on here and I thought you guys had said that was the recommendation by the AAP. She advised me that she heard that rumor, but when she looked on the AAP site there was no mention of that, so she said it was OK for me to put her FF now. I was all excited because I'm thinking "Great, now I can see her!!". So anyways, she's been FF now for a month and she and I have been loving it. Now this confirms that it is safer and my original idea was correct.

I'm going to change her to RR today because car safety comes FIRST!! Thanks guys.

*Does anyone know what the weight limit for RFing is on the Britax Boulevard convertible carseat?* I can 't seem to find my manual (I think my hubby put it somewhere when he installed the carseat even though I told him over and over again to leave it with the carseat!!, ugh!!!


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

If you bought yours recently, it's probably 35#. It used to be 33#. Check the stickers on the side of the seat.


----------



## sarajane (Oct 20, 2004)

http://www.britaxusa.com/car-seats/boulevard

If it is an older seat then I don't know.


----------



## mnm4242 (Mar 30, 2009)

Awesome guys, thank you sooo much!! She's 22 lbs so she will be good for a while.

I just emailed the GMA link to my pediatrician. Maybe she already saw it, but just in case.

One more quick question:

The way our car is (back seat is sooo straight up and down, not reclined at all) the carseat was too upright for her in the Rear facing position and she had hardly any leg room (plus her head was falling forward). The CHP officer who checked our carseat said it was ok and safer to have a rolled up towel underneath the car seat (near the seatbelt side) in order to recline the seat more. This worked perfectly and reclined the seat a little and gave her way more leg room. Just wanted to check in with you guys (since you do a lot of research) to see if this seems safe to you. The carseat is still very tightly secured (not moving more than 1").

Thanks!


----------



## love bug (Dec 4, 2003)

Wow! I didn't know!
yikes. Both my ds's turned ff at one and dd who is 9 months would have followed suit in a few months.
thanks for all the great info.

quick question ds2 who is 3 1/4 and 34 lbs is ff in a marathon can I rf him in that seat still?


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Yes it is fine to use a noodle or towel if needed, although I rarely find them necessary with Britax seats. Watch to make sure the seat itsn't over-reclined (past 45*). Also, the Britax seats just have less legroom than other seats.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *love bug* 
Wow! I didn't know!
yikes. Both my ds's turned ff at one and dd who is 9 months would have followed suit in a few months.
thanks for all the great info.

quick question ds2 who is 3 1/4 and 34 lbs is ff in a marathon can I rf him in that seat still?

In that Marathon,probably not. The 2009 models have a 35 lb weight limits but before that they had 33 pound weight limits. The new Graco seat has a 40 lb weight limit though


----------



## pumpkin (Apr 8, 2003)

My concern is that there may be a push to legally require children to be rear-facing for so long. I think its a great message, but I hope parents will still have the discretion to decide it isn't best for their child.

I say this as someone who suffers from severe motion sickness even as an adult. It isn't just about discomfort. I have a hard enough time sitting in the front seat. Thankfully DD has displayed no signs of having my problem, but if she does I am going to address it. Not doing so would be abusive in my opinion. If she doesn't then she will probably be rear-facing for many years.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Personally, I'd be happy with 2 AND 30 here. Or really, just seats like the have in Sweden! Nothing will get my kids even close to 4 that we have here.







Having huge kiddos with long torsos has it's disadvantages.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkin* 
My concern is that there may be a push to legally require children to be rear-facing for so long. I think its a great message, but I hope parents will still have the discretion to decide it isn't best for their child.

They have talked about making it a law here, to RF to 4 years at least.
I think it's a great, fantastic idea, and I really hope that will happen in the next few years. As do everyone I know.
It will be a transition time of course, and also there has to be some "medical excuse part" or summat.


----------



## 298mom (Apr 27, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mnm4242* 
So anyways, she's been FF now for a month and she and I have been loving it. Now this confirms that it is safer and my original idea was correct.

I'm going to change her to RR today because car safety comes FIRST!! Thanks guys.

Kudos to you to going back to rfing!
Two months ago on a road trip, dd puked all over her seat. It dripped down holes and everything. We stopped at a store and dh cleaned it up pretty well, but it still smelled and we had a few more hours to go. We decided to just buy a cheap ffing seat (not the best choice in hindsight, but it was a quick decision.)
Anyway, the point is - she rode ffing the rest of the trip, and now goes ff once or twice a month, since we're using the cheapo as a spare. She's equally happy or fussy, no matter which way she's facing, and doesn't mind going back to rear after ffing.
So it's not to late to go back to rfing!


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
They have talked about making it a law here, to RF to 4 years at least.
I think it's a great, fantastic idea, and I really hope that will happen in the next few years. As do everyone I know.
It will be a transition time of course, and also there has to be some "medical excuse part" or summat.

And there needs to be seats that will accomidate tall children to 4yos, which there is not as of now. Neither of my ds's could make it to 3, let alone 4, with the seats currently on the market.


----------



## ashleyhaugh (Jun 23, 2005)

i think 2 and 30 is a good starting point. people already freak out about keeping kids rearfacing til one, i cant imagine the fits that will be thrown if the law jumps from one to four


----------



## sarajane (Oct 20, 2004)

Yeah, I wish there were more seats to choose from for higher rear-facing limits. My DD doesn't look like she will make it to 3 in her rear-facing seat. She is just plain heavy.

Question, do they stay rear facing at 35 pounds or do you turn them at 35 pounds? Or do you wait until 36 pounds, that being OVER the limit so no longer safe. Just want to be sure. I guess when they get close you have to check their weight quite often to make sure they don't get too heavy for RF.


----------



## WC_hapamama (Sep 19, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkin* 
My concern is that there may be a push to legally require children to be rear-facing for so long. I think its a great message, but I hope parents will still have the discretion to decide it isn't best for their child.

I say this as someone who suffers from severe motion sickness even as an adult. It isn't just about discomfort. I have a hard enough time sitting in the front seat. Thankfully DD has displayed no signs of having my problem, but if she does I am going to address it. Not doing so would be abusive in my opinion. If she doesn't then she will probably be rear-facing for many years.

Exactly.

My DD is very heat sensitive due to her eczema, which was quite severe when she was a toddler and preschooler. During the summer, having her in a rear-facing car seat meant that she was getting none of the benefit of the a/c in the car, or breeze through an open window. More than 30 minutes in the car seat on a warm day was just awful for her skin.

I turned her ff when she was 18 months old, in the summer. She no longer would scratch her self raw after 30 minutes car ride.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ashleyhaugh* 
i think 2 and 30 is a good starting point. people already freak out about keeping kids rearfacing til one, i cant imagine the fits that will be thrown if the law jumps from one to four

It's highly unlikely that it would just jump from 1 to 4, whether that is the safest or not. There are lots of kids under 4 who are not even in a harnessed seat, let alone in a rear facing seat. It is much more logical to extend the rear facing requirement by a smaller amount, to gain initial compliance, and go from there.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DahliaRW* 
And there needs to be seats that will accomidate tall children to 4yos, which there is not as of now. Neither of my ds's could make it to 3, let alone 4, with the seats currently on the market.

Yes, and here, there is.
And US will follow suit when the interest and focus on RF-ing to 4 yo. grows.


----------



## elanorh (Feb 1, 2006)

Thanks for this!

I've a couple friends expecting their first -- and many friends/sisters with young children who'd fit this age range.

I posted the BMJ link to my facebook page. I kept dd1 rear-facing 'til she hit her weight limit for her bucket, and kept dd2 rear-facing even longer (different bucket) - 'til she was past two years of age. Both of my sisters with little'uns have been ecstatic to turn their babies front-facing as soon as they hit one (one even earlier because he was 'so long.').









IME, with little babies, having a mirror they can look in to see their parents' faces while driving can help a lot with their fussing while rear-facing. And when dh was driving, I would sit in the seat next to the car seat, so babe wasn't all alone. Neither of our girls had a problem with being rear-facing (once we got mirrors and me sitting near them figured out







) -- and in fact, dd1 didn't get carsick 'til she was forward-facing.

In terms of carsickness, a mom here on mothering recommended folding a square of newspaper and putting it between tummy and shirt when buckling kids in -she said she didn't know why it worked, her Ped told her to try it. But it does absolutely work!! DD1 has only been carsick once while wearing it - when we forgot to put the paper in 'til she asked for it, and I suspect that was too late. And she got reliably carsick otherwise. Hope it's helpful for someone, as it has been wonderful for us!


----------



## MindlessChrissy (Jun 7, 2009)

We had already planned to leave ds rfing until he hit the limit on his seat (it's a convertable). I know when I aksed his pedi at his 9 month appointment about turning him, she said "I can understand where your question comes from since he's a big boy, but, we would like to keep him rfing for as long as possible". I'll have to bring it back up at his 12 month appointment next month as he's close to or over 30 pounds by now and his seat has a limit of 35 pounds rfing.


----------

