# baby outgrew infant car seat, now ready for... da-da-DA!! ... what?



## Amandala (Jan 8, 2009)

My 8 mo. old baby is clearly too big for his first car seat now. He weighs at least 20 lbs. and his legs are too long, they're sticking out of the car seat and all scrunched up against the back of the back seat. Pediatrician says it's time to move up.

I am totally baffled as to what we are supposed to get now.

I was thinking about a Graco Nautilus but now I'm hearing all this buzz about keeping them rear facing for longer. My big question about that: isn't that only safer in a head-on collision? Wouldn't a side impact still be the same and wouldn't a rear-ending have the same effect on a rear facing child that a head-on crash would on a forward-facing child?

Also, we really need to get something that will see us through a few more stages of development. We can't afford to be buying a new car seat every year.

I'm lost and have no idea where to begin. Help!


----------



## Erin+babyAndrew (Jan 2, 2004)

I'm pretty sure that whatever state or province you live in, that putting an 8 month old infant forward facing is not only illegal, but really dangerous. Rear facing is much safer (even in side impact.) I personally wouldn't turn a child forward facing until a bare minimum of 2 years of age. You should look at convertible seats, that means they rear face up to a maximum weight and then can be turned forward facing when the child is old enough and has reached the maximum weight limit or height limit for rear facing. Look for a seat that will allow rear facing to a minimum of 30 lbs, 35 is better. It should have tall harness slots and hold 65 lbs when forward facing. This will last your child for many years and keep him safer. Don't even consider buying a seat with a mere 40 lb forward facing weight limit. This just isn't sufficient any longer now that we know it's not safe to put little tiny 40 lb kids in a booster. A harness is that much safer, use it as long as possible.

Turning a child around to forward facing at 20 lbs regardless of how young they are is very old, very outdated information.

Here, this one rear faces to 40 lbs, forward facing to 65 and it's pretty affordable.


----------



## annekh23 (Nov 1, 2008)

It's all about direction of travel, even if someone ran into the back of you, the direction of movement is still forwards. When the direction of travel is backwards, the speed is much less, as cars can't go very fast when reversing, so a high speed impact whilst travelling backwards would be a very rare occurance!


----------



## Jenivere (Aug 4, 2003)

We just bought our 8 month old a Graco My Ride but there are quite a few other options out there like the Compass True Fit or the Britax Marathon which will keep your baby rear facing for a long time. The length of your babies legs don't matter, it's ok for them to bunch up. What matters is the torso height and weight. Some infant seats only go up to 22 lbs but there are some with a higher weight limit. If your baby is under the car sats limit and has at least an inch of shell above his head he is ok still. If not then you need a convertible seat and you need to keep him rear facing.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:

]My 8 mo. old baby is clearly too big for his first car seat now. He weighs at least 20 lbs. and his legs are too long, they're sticking out of the car seat and all scrunched up against the back of the back seat. Pediatrician says it's time to move up.
What child restraint is your child currently riding in? If he's in a typical 22 lb bucket, yes, he's about to outgrow it. However, legs being 'scrunched up against the back of the seat' is NORMAL, is SAFE, and is NOT a sign of a seat being outgrown. My two and three year olds have 'scrunched' up legs. Not a big deal.

Quote:

I was thinking about a Graco Nautilus but now I'm hearing all this buzz about keeping them rear facing for longer. My big question about that: isn't that only safer in a head-on collision? Wouldn't a side impact still be the same and wouldn't a rear-ending have the same effect on a rear facing child that a head-on crash would on a forward-facing child?
No. In fact, it's side impacts that are the most likely to be deadly if the child is forward facing. Keeping your child rear facing is the number one protection against death in a side-impact accident. A Nautilus or any other forward facing seat is not any kind of option for you right now. In three years, sure. But NOT NOW.

Quote:

Also, we really need to get something that will see us through a few more stages of development. We can't afford to be buying a new car seat every year.
Any large convertible like the Graco My Ride, Sunshine Kids' Radian or the Safety First Complete Air will last you until your child is old enough for a booster around the fifth or sixth birthday.


----------



## Fujiko (Nov 11, 2006)

As for rear-facing accidents:

Front impact: obviously safer to rear-face, as their spinal column is supported from head to sacrum.

Side impact: Most likely your vehicle will be moving forward, then get hit on the side. The impact will cause your vehicle to slow it's forward motion while simultaneously moving it to the side. If a child is forward facing, their head will move forward, then to the side, effectively wrapping their head around the edge of the seat. This will likely cause neck injury, possibly severe or fatal. If a child is rear facing, their head will mostly stay against the back of their seat and move to the side. Most convertible carseats have side impact walls, so that their head will be sort of cushioned, and their neck is less likely be put in an unnatural or dangerous position.

Rear impact: These collisions are usually at a much lower velocity than a front or side impact. Moreover, severe rear impacts are much less common than front or side impacts (4% vs. 72% and 24%, respectively). Because frontal impacts are usually more severe and common, it makes sense to save the protection for these collisions, i.e., be rear-facing in a carseat. It's a matter of statistics and chance.

There are a lot of options. We just bought a Graco MyRide 65 for our daughter and another for our son (due in Feb). This carseat can rear-face up to 40 lbs (provided your kid doesn't grow out of it by height first) and can forward face up to 65 lbs. It would probably be the last carseat you'd need to buy. There are others, like the True Fit or the Marathon.

Here's a link that might interest you:
Rear-Facing Car Seats and Safety
There are also many YouTube videos regarding rear-facing vs. forward-facing. Just do a you tube search.

Hope that helps.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

The Eddie Bauer Deluxe 3 in 1 goes rear facing to 35 pounds, then forward facing in a 5 point harness until 50 pounds, then turns into a high back booster until 100 pounds.

If cost is an issue for you and simply can't afford a seat in between the extended rearfacing stage and the booster stage, then something like this might be an option. Certainly much safer than flipping him at 8 months, which I absolutely wouldn't recommend.

I don't think the slots are as high with the 3 in 1 seats as in other seats (like the Radian), which means you might be forced to go into booster mode before he outgrows in it weight due to height, but, if cost is an issue, again, it's better than the alternative (which is to buy a forward facing seat with high slots and flip him now).

I think it's all dependent on the child. If you have a larger child, it absolutely would be safer to buy an "in between" seat (one that has high weight/height limits for rearfacing) to keep him rearfacing longer. Lots of information points to the development of the spine correlating to the safety of riding forward facing. In younger children they obviously won't have the benefit of age and development on their side if they're flipped forward too young, regardless of how much they weigh.

But I don't think you'll be buying a seat every year. After our daughter outgrew her infant seat we put her in a boulevard, at around 10 months, and she stayed there for nearly 3 years when she topped the rearfacing limit (and then it got into a crash and we had to replace it anyway, otherwise she'd still be in the boulevard forward facing). So you _can_ get two more seats to give you a higher rear facing limit without buy them a year apart, but if that's absolutely not an option at all, then a 3 in 1 would be WAY safer than putting an 8 month old in a Natulis. If that makes any sense?


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Here's a great story about a mom who had an accident from being rear ended.

http://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
The Eddie Bauer Deluxe 3 in 1 goes rear facing to 35 pounds, then forward facing in a 5 point harness until 50 pounds, then turns into a high back booster until 100 pounds.

l

This seat actually makes a deadly booster, and I would never suggest a parent use it as one. It also won't work to '100 pounds'. It will be outgrown by height before the child can sit safely without a seatbelt, and a dedicated booster will still have to be bought.

It makes a nice convertible, for sure, but should never be used as a booster.


----------



## Amandala (Jan 8, 2009)

Does anyone who has their 22 lb + kids in a rear-facing seat have a Honda Civic?

The seat that my little guy is outgrowing is a Combi Connection LX. It's in the rear passenger side seat and in order to sit in the passenger seat when his seat is in the car, I must push the passenger seat uncomfortably far forward. It won't fit in the driver's side back seat, it would make it impossible for either my husband or myself to drive.

So my question is, is it possible that one of these rear-facing seats for larger babies will even fit in our car at all? I mean, car seats are steep but they won't break us. Buying a different, larger car is totally out of the question.

We're keeping him in his current seat as long as possible, but even with the LATCH system it's clear that the seat has some room to move and would be jostled around pretty badly in a crash. Someone said there's nothing wrong with the baby's legs being scrunched up, but I don't see how that is - they're scrunched up between a car seat and a large, heavy piece of plastic that can move. I fail to see how that wouldn't result in two broken legs at least if we were to get into a crash.


----------



## Amandala (Jan 8, 2009)

Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

A convertible seat will install much more upright and will almost certainly fit in your car. The Radian is a maybe (it is a looong seat), but the TrueFit or the MyRide or Triumph Advance will definitely fit. The infant bucket seats often take up MORE room than the larger RF convertibles because they are up on a base and usually installed at a 45 degree angle.

Broken legs are common injuries for FORWRD facing children who have been in accidents, not RF kids. Somewhat counterintuitive, but true. Kids are flexible, those legs will bend. However, even if they break, a broken leg is easy to fix. A FF 8mo in any sort of serious frontal crash will likely have a broken NECK. Which would you prefer?

Also, in many convertible seats there is MUCH more legroom. The MyRide has really good legroom, I noticed. The TrueFit is pretty good in that department also.

Many seats will get your child to 5-6 years old safely (first RF, then FF), then you can buy a good booster and be done with seats.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.

Yup. And he's far safer like that than he would be FF. His neck and head are well supported in a crash, they won't go flinging about and sever his spinal cord in an accident.

FWIW, the Britax seats have relatively little legroom, which is a comfort issue for some children. Other seats are better. It's nto a safety issue either way though.


----------



## bandgeek (Sep 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.

Yes! That is what their legs look like! And no, it's not usually uncomfortable and certainly not dangerous. Kids are more likely to break their legs in the ff'ing position...they fly up and hit the seat in front of them. But rf'ing, the impact is different and the force on rebound is not as high so legs are not as high risk.

But, as one poster said, better a broken leg than a broken neck and that's the truth.

In a lot of seats, children don't really even have to bend their legs that much until around age 2. Here are my DD's legs in a graco my ride. She's 2 and fairly average height:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q...ettouching.jpg

This is my 75%ile height almost 5 year old DS in a radian. He's 40 lbs and too heavy for ours, but could probably rf for another year in an 80SL or XTSL. I'm too broke to buy one or I totally would. He still asks to sit rf'ing and very much prefers it.:

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q...adianrfing.jpg


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 

We're keeping him in his current seat as long as possible, but even with the LATCH system it's clear that the seat has some room to move and would be jostled around pretty badly in a crash. Someone said there's nothing wrong with the baby's legs being scrunched up, but I don't see how that is - they're scrunched up between a car seat and a large, heavy piece of plastic that can move. I fail to see how that wouldn't result in two broken legs at least if we were to get into a crash.

Your seat, actually ANY seat whether RF or FF should NOT be moving that much at all. We have a great install on my Britax Blvd. It does not move at all, not even a milimeter, seriously, it's in tight. Who installed your seat? Do you know that 80% of seats are installed wrong (usually by well meaning parents). Always have it checked by a certified car seat tech.

Also, there are no documented cases of broken legs from RF. But there is a well known risk of internal decapitation from FF, which means fatal injury or serious spinal fracture. Kids are very flexible and ride comfortable with "their legs like that" for long periods of time. It's safer and they don't have a problem with it so why should a parent?


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I have an accord and currently have a babyflend flex loc for DS2 (3 months) and an evenflo triumph advance rf for DS1 (2.5, 26+ pounds ~35.25" w/o shoes) and the triumph defintly takes up less space than the flex loc - I can't (comfortably) fit the flex loc behind the driver in my accord but the triumph fits with room to spare. My Dh actually has a civic which I can try the triumph in tommorrow and let you know how it fits in there, but I'd guess it'll fit fine as theres really not THAT much difference in backseat space between the accord & civic.

ETA: and if your getting a really loose install with the latch, try it with the seat belt - just pull it out ALL the way then clip it and pull it as tight as you can while putting all your weight on your seat. You should be doing the same with latch (put your weight on the seat then pull it tight).


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.

No, and no.

My almost four year old regularly goes on multiple-hour rides rear facing. She's totally comfortable.

There has NEVER been a documented instance of a child suffering a leg injury due to rear facing in a correctly sized and installed seat.

The Honda Civic is not that small. Convertibles can go easily in it.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
There has NEVER been a documented instance of a child suffering a leg injury due to rear facing in a correctly sized and installed seat.

And even if there was, I'd take that over internal decapitation, brain or spinal injury, or even death.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
This seat actually makes a deadly booster, and I would never suggest a parent use it as one. It also won't work to '100 pounds'. It will be outgrown by height before the child can sit safely without a seatbelt, and a dedicated booster will still have to be bought.

It makes a nice convertible, for sure, but should never be used as a booster.

I would STILL recommend this seat over putting an 8 month old in a natilus.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Absolutely. I would too. And I'm sure Maezde would as well.

The OP is concerned about cost. I understand that quite well. The 50# 3-in-1 seats run about $180 and are decent convertibles and awful boosters. A Graco MyRide or an Evenflo Triumph Advance, plus a Graco Turbobooster, would be a decent convertible plus a very good booster, for the same total price.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chickabiddy* 
Absolutely. I would too. And I'm sure Maezde would as well.

The OP is concerned about cost. I understand that quite well. The 50# 3-in-1 seats run about $180 and are decent convertibles and awful boosters. A Graco MyRide or an Evenflo Triumph Advance, plus a Graco Turbobooster, would be a decent convertible plus a very good booster, for the same total price.

Exactly. There's no need from a budget perspective to use the AOE for a booster.

Ick. Nasty thing.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
And even if there was, I'd take that over internal decapitation, brain or spinal injury, or even death.









Death is rather compelling, isn't it?


----------



## Amandala (Jan 8, 2009)

Mamas,

Thanks for the info. People saying stuff like, "I use this, and..." is just what I was looking for. I've written down a few brand and model names and am researching them. As you can imagine, typing "rear-facing car seat" into Gooooogle presented me with less-than- (or rather, MOOOOORE than) helpful results.


----------



## ashleyhaugh (Jun 23, 2005)

check out www.car-seat.org too. we had a rearfacing britax marathon in a honda civic hybrid with more than enough room. in my saturn the front seat is nearly all the way up, but not in the civic. (and here is my son at 23 months, about 25-26 lbs and 32 or so inches in the marathon on my saturn http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...rearfacing.jpg )

honestly though, if i had to buy a new seat now (and i so want one of the new ones but can justify- or afford!!- buying a new one) i would get a radian that rear faces to 40-45 lbs, or maybe a safety first complete air (ive never seen one of those in person though). i really like the true fit too.

im holding out on a new seat til hes closer to outgrowing this one rearfacing though (35lb rf'ing limit), to see what other nifty new seats come out


----------



## madcap150 (Jan 11, 2008)

OP, just wanted to let you know that my 27 lb, 20 month old son rides rearfacing in a Britax Boulevard in my 2001 Civic with no problems at all for leg room. He is on the passenger side and neither I nor my husband (both about 5'9") have any problems with leg room when we sit in the seat in front of him. As other posters have mentioned, convertibles generally take up less front-to-back room than infant seats. You shouldn't have a problem finding one to fit in your Civic.









The Boulevard is expensive and I think that better seats and better bargains have come out since we bought it, so it's probably not the best choice for you-- but just letting you know, it's a monstrous seat, but fits fine in the Civic!


----------



## Erin+babyAndrew (Jan 2, 2004)

When my kids were still rear facing, we had them in a Marathon in our Hyundai Elantra hatchback. There was lots of room and the marathon is a really tall seat. Don't forget that once infants are older, their rear facing seat doesn't have to be as reclined as the infant seat was. They can be more upright so the seat will take up less room front to back. As has been stated numerous times now, their legs are not in danger and they are not uncomfortable. My youngest *hated* his infant seat and cried in it so we moved him to the Marathon (rear facing) at 7 weeks old and nearly 20 lbs. He was a really heavy and wide guy, I think his shoulders were squished. In the Marathon he suddenly had enough room and a more comfortable seat. Convertibles are awesome!


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

I was going to buy a True Fit Premiere to go RFing in my Corolla, since you can remove the headrest and decrease the wasted space when your child is still short.









Then my MIL gave me a van, I went to BRU to buy ds a Turbo Booster (which he LOVES, just freaking LOVES, I am a convert) and I saw the Safety First Complete Air on display and was instantly smitten. I think that will be my convertible seat for dd2. No question it would have fit in the Corolla.

My dd1 has a Radian, which would NOT have worked for us FFing in the Corolla since we have 3 kids. With just one kid, I could have put it behind the passenger side and resigned myself to being a little scrunched up.

It sounds like you've got a pretty serious installation problem! The base of my dd2's baby bucket does not move at all. Does your town's fire dept do free install checks? They do around here - you just have to call and make an appointment. If I were you, I'd buy a new seat and bring it with you to your appointment, and practice installing it with the car seat tech to guide you. Installation is SO difficult - it's only after five years that dh and I finally feel confident about it, and I still can't do it correctly without his help in some cars just due to a lack of strength. There's no shame asking for help when you're a new parent! (Or an old parent!)


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Does anyone who has their 22 lb + kids in a rear-facing seat have a Honda Civic?

Yep. My dd was rf in our Civic until 3.5yrs in a britax boulevard. No problem.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.

Yep. NOT uncomfortable. MUCH safer.

If I was buying a convertible seat today I'd get a radian or a true fit (premier personally, as I find tethering or an anti rebound bar important)

I expect to keep ds rf until at least 4yrs old.

-Angela


----------



## azmomtoone (Aug 30, 2008)

My DH drives a Neon....similiar to a Civic...and DS has been rearfacing in there in an Evenflo Triumph, a Costco Touriva (precursor to the Scenera available now), a Radian, a Marathon, and a Recaro Signo. The last three have to be installed more upright - closer to 30 or 35 degree angle instead of the 45 degree angle for newborns & tiny infants in order to fit. W/ that install, all three fit in the center of his vehicle, where we could not fit an infant seat (we had a Graco Snugride and a Costco bucket, not sure what model now?) behind my 6' tall DH... So I'm pretty sure you can find something to fit in your Civic.








If you check YouTube for videos of rear-facing vs forward-facing crash tests, you'll get a better feel for why their legs are better off RF'ing than FF...even when they are crossed or scrunched up... (but I agree w/ PP's, better broken legs than a broken neck, if the crash is that severe)


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The Britax seats have some of the least legroom on the market.

I'd look at the True Fit and the MyRide. The MyRide can be found at Babies-R-Us; they also have the Evenflo Triumph Advance and the Safety 1st Complete Air, which are also worth looking at.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amandala* 
Seriously?

http://www.britaxusa.com/uploads/pro...-images/33.jpg

My kid is NOWHERE NEAR THIS AGE YET, but the manufacturers are actually recommending this product for kids this age, when their legs look like that?

My first thought is this is going to be very uncomfortable, probably bad for the kid, for anything more than a 15-minute car ride. My second thought is even a minor rear-ending is going to result in two broken knees for this kid.

I agree completely. I think a child sitting like that is ludicrous. We do 6 hour drives quite frequently and there is no way my child would be comfortable like that. Plus, good luck seeing the TV.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Latte Mama* 
Your seat, actually ANY seat whether RF or FF should NOT be moving that much at all. We have a great install on my Britax Blvd. It does not move at all, not even a milimeter, seriously, it's in tight. Who installed your seat? Do you know that 80% of seats are installed wrong (usually by well meaning parents). Always have it checked by a certified car seat tech.

*Also, there are no documented cases of broken legs from RF.* But there is a well known risk of internal decapitation from FF, which means fatal injury or serious spinal fracture. Kids are very flexible and ride comfortable with "their legs like that" for long periods of time. It's safer and they don't have a problem with it so why should a parent?

There are very few older children riding rear facing and of the ones who are not many will be in accidents so say there are no reports of it is really not all that helpful. If all children starting riding rear facing until an older age it would be likely problems with it would start to surface.


----------



## Friday13th (Jun 13, 2006)

I find all the "where is that child going to put their legs" arguments to be rather nonsensical because I CHOOSE to sit cross legged on long car trips, it's way more comfortable for me and I'm not nearly as bendy as a small child.

Anyway, Britax seats really do have the least amount of legroom, my almost 2 year old has a ton more leg room in his True Fit than his Marathon. Number two will be going into the Marathon once he/she fits and DS will be getting another True Fit or a Radian most likely.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
There are very few older children riding rear facing and of the ones who are not many will be in accidents so say there are no reports of it is really not all that helpful. If all children starting riding rear facing until an older age it would be likely problems with it would start to surface.


actually, in sweden, it is quite standard for kids to be rearfacing til 4yo, and still, same thing, no broken legs.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I agree completely. I think a child sitting like that is ludicrous. We do 6 hour drives quite frequently and there is no way my child would be comfortable like that. Plus, good luck seeing the TV.









My dd can see the dvd player in our van while rearfacing, she just turns her head and looks up.


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2maya* 
actually, in sweden, it is quite standard for kids to be rearfacing til 4yo, and still, same thing, no broken legs.

And Sweden has been doing extended rearfacing since the 60s. So it's not like they have a lack of data!


----------



## nutritionistmom (Jun 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
This seat actually makes a deadly booster, and I would never suggest a parent use it as one. It also won't work to '100 pounds'. It will be outgrown by height before the child can sit safely without a seatbelt, and a dedicated booster will still have to be bought.

It makes a nice convertible, for sure, but should never be used as a booster.

Can you link me to some info on the booster problem? This is the first I've heard of it. TIA.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I agree completely. I think a child sitting like that is ludicrous. We do 6 hour drives quite frequently and there is no way my child would be comfortable like that. Plus, good luck seeing the TV.









Your opinion is noted, but is not relevant to facts. It is not 'ludicrous' for a child to be safe in the car.

And, uh, the TV isn't that important. Some people actually go their entire lives without watching tv in the car.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nutritionistmom* 
Can you link me to some info on the booster problem? This is the first I've heard of it. TIA.

Sure, check out the IIHS report...

http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/...s/default.html

I'm feeling pretty sick right now or I'd go into a *whole thing* but basically those boosters don't do the job they're supposed to do 'well'...keep the lap belt off the soft under belly in an accident.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
I agree completely. I think a child sitting like that is ludicrous. We do 6 hour drives quite frequently and there is no way my child would be comfortable like that. Plus, good luck seeing the TV.









Dd was quite comfortable. Her legs dangling ff are far less comfortable than she was cross-legged while rf.

-Angela


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2maya* 
My dd can see the dvd player in our van while rearfacing, she just turns her head and looks up.

That would cause some pretty serious neck and shoulder problems after 6 hours!


----------



## allisonrose (Oct 22, 2004)

Amandala - I drive a Honda Civic and have my 22 lb, 13 month old son RFing in a True Fit. It fits quite nicely in my back seat. I have it more upright than the 45 degree that newborns require. One of the reasons that I went with the TF is that there is more legroom than in Britax seats such as the picture you linked.
Car-seat.org is a great resource for comparative pictures of RFing LOs. I recall more than one post showing a child in both a TF and a Britax.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Dd was quite comfortable. Her legs dangling ff are far less comfortable than she was cross-legged while rf.

-Angela

I agree completely. My DD is going to be 23mos. She's nearly 3ft tall and is 30lbs. She gets angry forward facing because there is nowhere to rest her legs. _ETA she is rear facing in a safety first complete air and graco myride65. Thank goodness for coupons







_

I prefer broken legs to a broken neck. I also don't believe that children should be watching TV in the car- no matter how educational it is. I actually think that kids shouldn't be watching much TV at all, period









I don't think extended rear facing is ludicrous or absurd. It is for the safety of my child. Sure it's not the norm, but I'm not going to conform to norms and give up my child's safety. Many mommas on here are very pro extended breastfeeding. Also not a norm nowadays. But we do it anyways- why? For the health and well being of our children. And I'm sure that the majority of us will agree that extended breastfeeding is not ludicrous. Each to their own, but I don't think that safety and well-being are ludicrous. Call me strange.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
That would cause some pretty serious neck and shoulder problems after 6 hours!

Not nearly as serious as, say, internal decapitation


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
There are very few older children riding rear facing and of the ones who are not many will be in accidents so say there are no reports of it is really not all that helpful. If all children starting riding rear facing until an older age it would be likely problems with it would start to surface.

As a PP already stated, in other countries, extended RF is common and they don't have an increased incidence of broken legs. BUT, if they did, isn't that still preferable to death? Am I missing something here?

May I ask why is it important to have your kids FF sooner rather than later? Just curious.


----------



## jillmamma (Apr 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
That would cause some pretty serious neck and shoulder problems after 6 hours!

You could always get a mirror for the headrest, and aim it so the child can see the TV in the mirror.


----------



## petra_william (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Dd was quite comfortable. Her legs dangling ff are far less comfortable than she was cross-legged while rf.

-Angela

DS isexactly the same, I dont drive and the seat ive got is quite large so doesnt fit in every car i get lifts in rf (unfortunately, next one im getting is smaller and should fit in more cars!) anyway, when he is ff he can veryrarely fall asleep or get comfortable if he is tired or on long journeys unless i somehow manage to prop up his feet like he is used to from his britax multitech (which will let him RF until 55 lbs!)









Oh, AND: we've driven from England to Austria - thats 10 hours with ds RF. and i wouldnt drive it with him ff.


----------



## nutritionistmom (Jun 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
Sure, check out the IIHS report...

http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/...s/default.html

I'm feeling pretty sick right now or I'd go into a *whole thing* but basically those boosters don't do the job they're supposed to do 'well'...keep the lap belt off the soft under belly in an accident.

Thanks for the link. I passed it on to the man who organizes our clinics and I'll pass it on to our techs. Some of those we don't get (Canadian) but we see a ton of Alpha Omegas and Eddie Bauers.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

My tall 3.5-year-old barely has to bend his knees rearfacing in a Radian, which has much more leg room than the Britax seats. So, it all depends on which seat you get.

As for TV... I install mine on the back seat headrest for long trips.


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Latte Mama* 
As a PP already stated, in other countries, extended RF is common and they don't have an increased incidence of broken legs. BUT, if they did, isn't that still preferable to death? Am I missing something here?

May I ask why is it important to have your kids FF sooner rather than later? Just curious.

Because my children screamed every second they were in the car until they were forward facing and because I have bad nerves and it made me edgy and not drive safely so I made the decision that the risk of an accident was waaaaayyy lower if I wasn't losing it listening to my babies scream bloody murder. And yes I tried everything to get them not to scream, and no, staying at home was NOT an option.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Because my children screamed every second they were in the car until they were forward facing and because I have bad nerves and it made me edgy and not drive safely so I made the decision that the risk of an accident was waaaaayyy lower if I wasn't losing it listening to my babies scream bloody murder. And yes I tried everything to get them not to scream, and no, staying at home was NOT an option.

So if it is a six month old screaming do you turn them? If it is a two year old screaming because they hate being harnessed do you booster them (or put them in the seatbelt alone?) Or would you stay home? Or would you keep them the way they were and drive anyway?

The reality is you say you did it to keep them safer and I really do get the unsafe nature of a distracted driver. But the reality is even the best drivers get in accidents. And I personally can't imagine knowing my say one year old died because I didn't keep them in the seat that was so much safer for them. We aren't talking a small difference in safety here. And most kids will be fine just like most kids are fine even in misused seats because they aren't ever in an accident for some it will be, quite literally, the difference between life and death. For someone to say that something we know is safer is ludicrous blows my mind.


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Because my children screamed every second they were in the car until they were forward facing and because I have bad nerves and it made me edgy and not drive safely so I made the decision that the risk of an accident was waaaaayyy lower if I wasn't losing it listening to my babies scream bloody murder. And yes I tried everything to get them not to scream, and no, staying at home was NOT an option.

But your first 2 posts in this thread gave the impression that you don't agree with RF at all, not because it didn't work for your family. I honestly empathize with anyone that has a screamer in the car. My son screamed for 6 months until we put him in the convertible seat. I know what it's like.

The majority of children can ride RF even those that were screamers and lurkers and those that don't know much about car seat safety reading this thread need to know that. I'm sorry it didn't work out for you.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I have a TrueFit for ds2, and like it. I liked that it seems to give lots of legroom for when he gets older. Also, just from reading others' experiences with it, it doesn't seem to take up much room rf'ing for older infants (who can be more upright).

I also have a Radian for ds1, but have only ever used it ff'ing. I LOVE it, but it just wasn't going to work rf'ing reclined enough for a newborn in our van.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Heavenly* 
Because my children screamed every second they were in the car until they were forward facing and because I have bad nerves and it made me edgy and not drive safely so I made the decision that the risk of an accident was waaaaayyy lower if I wasn't losing it listening to my babies scream bloody murder. And yes I tried everything to get them not to scream, and no, staying at home was NOT an option.

It sounds like you made a decision you were comfortable with. However, I don't quite understand how that makes extended rf'ing "ludicrous" for everyone else.
I can understand how, in your specific situation, you decided that ff'ing would be better. But the statistics seem pretty compelling that rf'ing is safer, in general.
(ftr, I turned ds1 at 15mos for the same reasons. I wouldn't do it again, but I was ok with it at the time, even though I'd heard that extended rf was safer).


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Screaming in the car is not unusual. All three of my kids went through it, and trust me, I know the mental anguish and distraction it causes the driver.

However, it doesn't mean that it was a safer idea to turn the child forward facing. In Sweden, they get through it, and their rate of child death is near zero. Somehow I doubt little Swedish babies never scream in the car, and parents of Swedish toddlers don't have a high rate of plowing into trees due to the distraction.


----------



## accountclosed2 (May 28, 2007)

I currently live in Sweden, and can confirm that:

Yes, children rf till around age 4. I've never heard of anyone breaking their legs in an accident due to rf.

Yes, Swedish babies and children scream in cars. While Swedish parents in general are more towards GD (or no discipline in some cases), they are quite good at following rules and recommendations ("but you're supposed to!). So the parents would just keep them rf in their carseats (and try to make them happier, with pacifiers, toys, snacks...)

And no, Swedish parents don't seem to crash because they are distracted. Despite the fact that most keep the baby (in a baby capsule, rf) in the front passenger seat (with airbag turned off, of course), as per Swedish recommendations.









And yes, the numbers of young children dying (or getting severely injured) in car accidents is close to nil.


----------



## betsyj (Jan 8, 2009)

I have a Mazda 3 (with no TV







) and the My Ride actually gives me a bit more room then the infant seat I had. So my son can stay rf'ing for quite some time.


----------

