# Rear Facing vs Forward Facing carseat



## mamatalks (Jun 9, 2011)

Just curious at what age everyone turned around their LOs car seats. I keep hearing that "they"re saying not to turn the carseats around now until your LO turns 2! Any advice?


----------



## sosurreal09 (Nov 20, 2009)

Definately not until age 2! *We* won't be FF until at least 3 y/o


----------



## samstress (Feb 21, 2008)

we just turned our four-year-old around to forward facing because she reached 33 pounds (the rear-facing weight limit for her car seat).

rear-facing is safest. if you're not convinced, watch this.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

My little guy turns 3 in July and is rear facing. He's on the small side, so he's nowhere near the weight limit for his seat yet and we won't turn him forward until we need to.


----------



## mama2soren (Feb 12, 2009)

My DS is 3 years old and RF. I'll keep him that way until he's at least 4. He has lots of room to grow in his Sunshine Kids Radian! Less room in his Britax Boulevard, but we'll switch him out of that into a roomier True Fit in about 6 months (when our new baby will fit in the Boulevard.)


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

Our car seat allows rear-facing until 12kg. At this rate our LO will be rear-facing until after she is 2.


----------



## new2this (Feb 11, 2010)

At the earliest 2. But we will go to the weight/height of the seat. I am hoping to buy one for my car that will RF longer and move the current one she is in to DH's vehicle.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

My oldest is 3, and rear-facing. She will stay that way until she hits about 40lbs (limit of her seat). I hope she makes it to her 4th birthday, but I dont think it will happen. She's 37lbs, 38".


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

2 is now the recommended *minimum* for turning forward facing. And since most moms want much more for their kid than the bare minimum, hopefully most parents will choose to follow the best practice recommendation of "as long as they can", which can be 3, 4, 5 years old  My 3.5 year old probably has another year left in his rearfacing convertible seat


----------



## Katie T (Nov 8, 2008)

With DD1 (who is 11yo) I didn't know any better and turned her at a yr. With DS he was rear facing till 3 1/2yrs when he maxed out his seat for weight. DD2 will be 3yo in 1 weeks and is still rear facing and will be till she maxes out her seat.

It is 5times safer to have them rfing and unless my child out grew there seat I would not turn at 2.


----------



## Agatha_Ann (Apr 5, 2009)

My youngest is still RFing at almost 2 1/2, and he has 4 more pounds to go in his true fit. My others I turned at 2. DS2 because at that time he had outgrown the seat rf-ing, and with DS1 and DD that was pretty extreme!


----------



## cinderella08 (Feb 27, 2009)

My 29m old is rear-facing and still has about 3" and 11lbs of growth in her seat before she'll turn FF.


----------



## butterflylover (Jun 3, 2011)

I turned my DC around at age 3. I wish I had left her rf a bit longer though.


----------



## galincognito (Nov 23, 2007)

dd1 turned 4 last Friday; she's still rear facing and will until she asks to be turned. her seat rear faces to 45 lbs but she's only about 35 currently. at this rate, she'll be ten before she maxes out her seat! I wanted to keep her rear facing until she wad at least 4, then when(if?) she asks, we'll talk about it. honestly though, she loves it. she's only asked once (about a year ago) to turn forwards.


----------



## Marissamom (Dec 17, 2009)

My DD is 2, and she won't be turning around for at least a couple more years. Ideally I would like to get my kids to booster age rearfacing, and skip forwardfacing and harnessed. rearfacing is so much safer, especially because my kids have 80th percentile heads and DD has a 5th percentile body.


----------



## MJB (Nov 28, 2009)

I RF'd my 5 yr. old until he outgrew his seat at 2.5, and my little one will be RFing until 3 or 4.


----------



## ecoteat (Mar 3, 2006)

DD was rear-faced until 2.5.


----------



## jeminijad (Mar 27, 2009)

I turned her around a little while ago (a few months past her 2nd birthday.) I had planned to go till 3, but didn't for several reasons. I would not, however, FF before 2 if I could avoid it.


----------



## Skippy918 (Jul 15, 2008)

DS is still RFing at almost 3. I plan to keep him there until he either maxes out the height or weight or until his baby sister moves out of the bucket next year and then we'll get him another harness seat that converts to a booster.


----------



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

Rear-facing is always going to be safer, so of course, the longer, the better! The two year recommendation should be a minimum - but it's something to at least shoot for (even if it means buying a new car seat if it's outgrown by height or weight). After two years, I'd say it depends on individual situations. Hopefully more and more car seat manufacturers will get on board and design their seats to accommodate older riders, then it shouldn't even be an issue. Ideally, kids could rear-face until closer to 4 years of age.


----------



## mamatalks (Jun 9, 2011)

Thank you for all the feed back. I understand the need to keep the LO rear facing as long as possible but I'm just curious about the LO's legs being squished when they remain RF as they start to grow. Our DS is still RF but his legs seem to be really scrunched up! Are there not concerns about that aspect of being RF?


----------



## synepona (Jan 11, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamatalks*
> 
> Thank you for all the feed back. I understand the need to keep the LO rear facing as long as possible but I'm just curious about the LO's legs being squished when they remain RF as they start to grow. Our DS is still RF but his legs seem to be really scrunched up! Are there not concerns about that aspect of being RF?


I think you'll find that there are zero (or very few?) documented cases of extended rear-facing children suffering broken legs, and even if they did, a broken leg can be fixed much more easily than the sort of injury that can occur when FF'ng too early -- in small children with still developing spines & necks, I think risking a broken leg is better than risking a broken neck if you have the choice, within the limits of your seat, or the seats available to you 

DS is FF'ng now, he's over 4 (and 2lbs away from legally boostering in our area, but he doesn't know that, and I'm not going to tell him!), but he STILL sits with his legs up much of the time, or sprawled to the sides ... I don't think the 'dangling down the front' would be more comfy than the support of RF'ng.


----------



## mama2soren (Feb 12, 2009)

Broken legs are common injuries in forward facing children who are involved in accidents. Their legs (and arms) are flung with considerable force into the seat in front of them or the door to the side of them. This is not a risk when RF.


----------



## galincognito (Nov 23, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamatalks*
> 
> Thank you for all the feed back. I understand the need to keep the LO rear facing as long as possible but I'm just curious about the LO's legs being squished when they remain RF as they start to grow. Our DS is still RF but his legs seem to be really scrunched up! Are there not concerns about that aspect of being RF?


my kids either cross their legs, have them over the sides or prop them up on the seat back. neither of the two older ones (4 years old and 2 years old) have complained. they've just done whatever works for them and they don't know any different!


----------



## Chloe'sMama (Oct 14, 2008)

DD iust turned 3 and is still RF. She is very tall for her age, but we still have 6 or so months in her complete air. We are good on weight for a long time.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamatalks*
> 
> Thank you for all the feed back. I understand the need to keep the LO rear facing as long as possible but I'm just curious about the LO's legs being squished when they remain RF as they start to grow. Our DS is still RF but his legs seem to be really scrunched up! Are there not concerns about that aspect of being RF?


No, there are no legitimate concerns or risk in regards to legs for an older rear facing child. Some convertibles offer a lot of leg room (The First Years True Fit, the Sunshine Kids' Radians, the Graco My Ride 65 and the Safety First Complete Air are all good examples). And some seats offer really poor or limited legroom (Britax and Recaro convertibles).

If you have an average to large child, or a very complainy child, you might want to invest in a seat that fits legs better than the Britax or Recaro convertibles. However, it is *not* a safety or development concern in the least.


----------



## mamatalks (Jun 9, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maedze*
> 
> No, there are no legitimate concerns or risk in regards to legs for an older rear facing child. Some convertibles offer a lot of leg room (The First Years True Fit, the Sunshine Kids' Radians, the Graco My Ride 65 and the Safety First Complete Air are all good examples). And some seats offer really poor or limited legroom (Britax and Recaro convertibles).
> 
> If you have an average to large child, or a very complainy child, you might want to invest in a seat that fits legs better than the Britax or Recaro convertibles. However, it is *not* a safety or development concern in the least.


Thank you! I was wondering if it might be our carseat that was just not allowing for some much needed leg room. We have a britax! Maybe we'll look into getting a different seat if the complains start coming.


----------



## samstress (Feb 21, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SynEpona*
> 
> I don't think the 'dangling down the front' would be more comfy than the support of RF'ng.


i agree, in fact, i think it's probably more uncomfortable. i think it would cut off the circulation. just turned my 4-year-old dd around to forward facing and i hate to see her legs dangling there. i prefer it when she props them up against the passenger seat.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *galincognito*
> 
> my kids either cross their legs, have them over the sides or prop them up on the seat back. neither of the two older ones (4 years old and 2 years old) have complained. they've just done whatever works for them and they don't know any different!












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mamatalks*
> 
> Maybe we'll look into getting a different seat if the complains start coming.


i doubt it will. mine never complained.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

My 6 year old still RF


----------



## KaliShanti (Mar 23, 2008)

Until the limits of your seat! For DS that was 2.5. For DD it will be a LONG time (she is 19 months and about 22 lbs and her seat goes to 45 rear-facing)


----------



## KaliShanti (Mar 23, 2008)

Also, my DS never complained about it being uncomfy UNTIL I turned him FF. Now his legs fall asleep sometimes.


----------



## brennan (Feb 1, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KaliShanti*
> 
> Also, my DS never complained about it being uncomfy UNTIL I turned him FF. Now his legs fall asleep sometimes.


As a short person, I am far FAR more comfortable with my legs up, cross legged, whatever than with my legs down. While I'm not short enough that my legs dangle in most chairs, its usually a stretch. Dd is 2 1/2 and tiny but she still seems to have PLENTY of leg room in her Britax RFing.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

DS is three, big for his age, and happily RF in a Sunshine Radian with a weight limit of 40 or 45 RF. I have no plans to move him FF anytime soon although I haven't met anyone IRL who has kept their kid RF past a max of 18 months.


----------



## yamilee21 (Nov 1, 2004)

There are also height limits to rear-facing, not just weight limits. For anyone using the Complete Air to rear-face a "tall" child, I saw this link a few days ago, in which the makers of the Complete Air emphatically state that the rear-facing limit is 40 inches. http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2011/06/safety-1st-clarifies-complete-air.html


----------



## Devaskyla (Oct 5, 2003)

I turned ds1 around 18 months. That was over 8 years ago, though and I was a weirdo for keeping him rearfacing past his first birthday. Had a hard time getting a seat that would even go rearfacing past 20lbs. Ds2 was a bit older, but pretty sure he was still under 2. That was a little over 4 years ago. Ds3 is 2 1/2 and I think he's pretty much outgrown his seat RF. I have a Radian, but it doesn't fit in my mom's car RF so unless we can mange to get our own vehicle, I'm going to have to turn him soon. (will have to double check how close he is to outgrowing it height wise next time I can install it). I'd like to keep him RF longer, but I can't shell out for another seat. We don't even have a car and I have 5 car seats and will probably still need an infant seat for a few months unless a)baby is bigger than N was & fits in a convertible or b)we don't go anywhere in a car until the baby fits in a convertible


----------



## SilverFish (Jan 14, 2010)

dd is 18 months and a peanut, so chances are she'll never outgrow her seat! haha. i don't have any plans to move her ffing with the exception of when #2 comes along, IF we still have our current car and IF we still have the same trouble getting a rfing seat behind the drivers seat that we did last time. i don't think we can fit two convertibles rfing in our car... however, we're in canada so have a smaller selection of seats available.


----------



## waiting2bemommy (Dec 2, 2007)

ds turned ff on his 3rd birthday. He is 36 lbs now and ff in an alpha omega. He *can* still ride rf in some seats but at 3 (now almost 4 )yrs old I'm comfortable with him ff. dd is still rf in a scenera and I don't think she'll be turning any time in the remotely near future....she only weighs 19 lbs! my SO's family actually thought it was illegal to have her backwards, lol. But we're in texas where it appears that half the population has never even heard of using car seats in the first place so I just smile and ignore. (Actually I do that for a lot of things). My 3 yo niece is in a backless booster. She never sits in it properly and unbuckles herself constantly. It's a good reminder to me of why even if they fit sizewise (which she doesn't, anyway) or even if it's legal, kids should stay harnessed and out of booster seats as long as possible.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

DD1 is 2.5 and I'm guessing we have another 3 or 4 months rf-ing. She's pretty tall and most of it is torso so finding a new rf-ing seat once she reaches the limits of this one might not be possible.


----------



## RuthieJ (May 30, 2009)

I haven't seen anyone else here mention this, but we had to turn our daughter to FF when she was just 18 months old, because she was so sick in the car. It was at the point where she threw up on every drive. We saw the doctor and the naturopath about it, but couldn't give her any relief. Once we turned her from RF to FF, she was completely better. Has anyone else had that problem with their LO? Our 14-month-old is RF and having no problems though, so we'll keep him that way until he outgrows the seat!

I also have to agree with all the posters having trouble fitting the RF seat behind the driver - impossible in our small car! And even now, with the RF seat behind the passenger, there is barely any leg space and the person in the front has to be crammed against the dash to fit in. I sure wish the cars/car seats could be better designed!


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

i dont even know how tht makes sense.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yamilee21*
> 
> There are also height limits to rear-facing, not just weight limits. For anyone using the Complete Air to rear-face a "tall" child, I saw this link a few days ago, in which the makers of the Complete Air emphatically state that the rear-facing limit is 40 inches. http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2011/06/safety-1st-clarifies-complete-air.html


----------



## TerrahMother (Apr 21, 2010)

Rear facing is the SAFEST way to travel... Pass it on...






The youtube video link above, "The Importance of Rear-facing", highlights some important information that made me commit to rear-facing for as long as possible. I even wish us grown-ups had car seats that had the option to lock into rear-facing position!


----------



## foreverinbluejeans (Jun 21, 2004)

My grandson will soon have his 3rd birthday and is rear facing. He is a little guy, only 24 pounds. We are going to get one of the extended rear facing car seats and keep him rear facing as long as possible. I've been in accidents with kids in car seats and it is much better to buy a car seat so the child can rear face until 35-40 pounds than to forward face because the child outgrew a baby car seat at around 22 pounds. You would never want to be in an accident and have your child injured or killed because they were forward facing when they could have been rear facing.


----------



## heathernj (Jan 21, 2011)

I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *heathernj*
> 
> I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!


Why don't you provide everyone with links to that research. I am dying to see it.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *heathernj*
> 
> I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!


The research I've seen has much higher numbers so I'd love to see that data. Please link.

Incidentally, most children sit in a cross-legged or bent-legged position regardless of how much room they have. When turned FF, my DD bends her legs up inside the carseat just like when she is RF. I do understand that carsick kids can sometimes be a reason to turn, but everything I've seen shows that it is MUCH safer through 2 (and no data after 2).


----------



## marymiss (Oct 22, 2009)

We switched from the infant seat to a convertible at 6 months, and we turned forward facing when she hit 1 year and 20 lbs. I know that recommendation is rear facing till 40 lbs and 2 years, but I figured a screaming baby in the back is far more dangerous than she being happy forward facing.


----------



## marymiss (Oct 22, 2009)

totally agree. glad you brought up the issue with the height and being rear faced. when they get tall to the point that there is no more leg room being rear faced, it's time to turn around. I also think that as parents, we should put ourselves in out kids' shoes and think of how we'd feel if we were in the exact same position. no view, car sick and no leg room. no wonder they scream!


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

to each her own i guess. i feel screaming baby is better than a dead or permanently disabled baby.


----------



## TheGirls (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marymiss*
> 
> totally agree. glad you brought up the issue with the height and being rear faced. when they get tall to the point that there is no more leg room being rear faced, it's time to turn around. I also think that as parents, we should put ourselves in out kids' shoes and think of how we'd feel if we were in the exact same position. no view, car sick and no leg room. no wonder they scream!


No view: This one always mystifies me. Do people not have rear windows in their cars? When she was RF in a car, DD had a panoramic view of the rear and side windows. Now she's in a van and can't see as much out the rear, but she can see more than she can when she's FF and gets a spectacular view of the back of my seat. No matter which way she's facing or in which car, I hear an endless stream of what she sees, so I'm quite aware of her exact view. She also yells at me if I make a "wrong turn" ie turn towards home instead of, say, the park where she wants to play.

car sick: Definitely something I'd take into consideration, if it were to affect one of my kids. However many, many children do not feel carsick while rear-facing. Including my own. RF is much safer than FF, so I'd try other solutions first, but if the motion sickness was severe enough and nothing else worked, yeah, I'd turn a kid who I'd otherwise want rear-facing.

no leg room: Most kids don't seem to care about this one either. Ever seen the weird and awkward positions kids sit, play, and sleep in? They are more flexible than us. If I were to squat to play with a bug for two hours straight, I wouldn't be able to walk for a week. My DD does this all the time. My son just fell asleep with his head resting on his leg. I don't bend that way. I have pics of myself as an older child sleeping in my own lap on a bus. I don't bend that way anymore. Also, in my van, DD is in a captain's chair which I have reclined for her. When she puts her legs up on the reclined seatback it's really not that different from an adult's recliner.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marymiss*
> 
> We switched from the infant seat to a convertible at 6 months, and we turned forward facing when she hit 1 year and 20 lbs. I know that recommendation is rear facing till 40 lbs and 2 years, but I figured a screaming baby in the back is far more dangerous than she being happy forward facing.


I always wonder how much more likely you are to get in an accident with a screaming kid. I know for me it's incredibly distracting to have someone shrieking in the back.


----------



## kimkim (Sep 22, 2009)

I'm glad to see a few people chimed in on screaming babies. In my experience when DD screams in the seat it's enough to make me want to drive off the road. My brain shuts down, I can't make decisions, I feel frantic. I thought she'd outgrow it but it's still miserable for both of us. But she's a peanut so I don't know when we'll reach the turn around markers. Not soon enough...I feel like I'm a safer driver and can make smarter decisions if my child isn't frantically wailing at the top of her lungs.

On a side note, does anyone recommend a carseat that rides higher? We have a subaru forester and it seems like her view is the car ceiling and the sky. I don't think she gets much out of window view being tilted back so far and to get the seat tight enough it's pushed so deep into the seat padding. Also, it doesn't fit behind the driver's seat...I'd get a new car seat if the person sitting up front didn't have their knees in the glove box and my child didn't see the car seat and cry immediately sometimes. It breaks my heart. We have a First Years True Fit.


----------



## grumpybear (Oct 5, 2006)

Re: long legs, my DS is long legged but never once complained about legroom while RF. When FF on the other hand, he frequently complains about his legs hanging from his seat and not touching the floor.


----------



## RuthieJ (May 30, 2009)

Ultimately, when it comes to car seats or any other parenting issue, I think each of us has to make the best judgement that we can, weighing out the benefits and disadvantages to decide what is right for our own children and for ourselves, depending on the unique circumstances we find ourselves in. The research definitely points towards RF as safer, and it's really important to promote that, but I don't think we should judge parents who decide that FF works best for their families. We're all just trying to do the best we can for our children and to survive parenthood!


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

It sounds like you didn't understand what you read. The 500% off quoted statistic covers children birth through 23 months. 75% covers children 12-23 months. Furthermore, the rate of return skyrockets when you're discussing side impact accidents.

I'm not sure if you simply misunderstood what you read, or you were so strongly opposed to the idea that you felt comfortable deliberately misinterpreting it, but representing an untruth as fact is pretty poor form.

Also should note: the rate of increased safety is not affected by having children carrying on in the back seat. The "Distracted Driving" argument is a non-starter, otherwise, people in Sweden would be crashing into trees left and right and little Swedish children would be getting killed by the dozen.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *heathernj*
> 
> I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

In addition, if I have to, I can force myself to focus on driving. I can't force my toddler to have a stronger spinal cord.


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maedze*
> 
> Also should note: the rate of increased safety is not affected by having children carrying on in the back seat. The "Distracted Driving" argument is a non-starter, otherwise, people in Sweden would be crashing into trees left and right and little Swedish children would be getting killed by the dozen.


How do you figure? Any links to studies done with screaming kids in the back seat?


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Because the average rate of child death in cars annually is four. In the most recent published study, of those four accidents, three of them were unsurviveable due to either fire or water, and in one, the child had been prematurely turned forward facing.

Since, with the rare exception as evidenced here, the standard in Sweden is to keep children rear facing for roughly the first 3-5 years of life, if there were concerns about distracted driving, the child death rate would reflect it. It didn't.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> How do you figure? Any links to studies done with screaming kids in the back seat?


----------



## Honey693 (May 5, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maedze*
> 
> Because the average rate of child death in cars annually is four. In the most recent published study, of those four accidents, three of them were unsurviveable due to either fire or water, and in one, the child had been prematurely turned forward facing.
> 
> Since, with the rare exception as evidenced here, the standard in Sweden is to keep children rear facing for roughly the first 3-5 years of life, if there were concerns about distracted driving, the child death rate would reflect it. It didn't.


But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

The 500% figure is from a study conducted with painstaking detail and talent. It's not 'what people keep saying.' It is statistical representation of factual events from 2003 to 2007 with American children in American cars driven by American drivers on American roads. There's nothing to argue with.

And it's highly unlikely that those four deaths were due to yelling kids, any more than they were due to any other of the number of reasons people crash their cars.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.


----------



## mama2soren (Feb 12, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Honey693*
> 
> But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.


Even if all 4 deaths were directly due to screaming kids/distracted parents and nothing else, it would still be worth saying that kids should RF until 3-4+ years, as they do in Sweden. Four deaths in one year. Compared to the US... where car accidents are the LEADING cause of death in kids.


----------



## SeattleRain (Mar 15, 2009)

If my kid was screaming in the car, I'd look into another seat before I'd flip my kid before 3 years old. Just like one sofa can feel comfortable to one person and torturous to another, I think it's possible that carseats can feel that way to different kids. To the person who was looking for a seat that sits up high, you're going to be looking for a seat that has a base, as opposed to the True Fit which doesn't have a base. So Britax seats, Evenflo Momentum/Triumph, Graco My Ride all have bases. I have a Subaru and my parents have a Britax Roundabout 55 and it fits great and I think you can find one around $150 right now with all the sales going on.

There are a lot of things in life that babies can assert control over. I will allow my son to make choices about his food or his clothes or the toys he wants to play with but I won't let him have a choice about his safety. I'm the mom, I'm in charge of whether or not he's as safe as possible. Once I accepted that crying was a normal, developmentally appropriate response to a toddler being restrained, I felt a lot better about the crying. It's okay for him to want to escape and not be in his seat, but that doesn't meant that I'm going to let him crawl around the back seat which is what he probably WANTS to do. I also made the parental decision to get a mirror that attaches to the headrest so I can see my son while he's RF. I know some people aren't comfortable with them because they might detach during a crash, I zip-tied it down so I feel pretty confident that it won't be a problem. If he's crying, I can keep an eye on him at red lights and peek back.

One thing I also like about RF is that it's easy to load up Daniel's lap with driving goodies like his snack trap full of cheerios and his sippy. Everything stays balanced, whereas if he was FF it wouldn't stay as well.


----------



## nia82 (May 6, 2008)

DS is rearfaced, a tall boy and he comfortably crosses his legs in the car. He sees plenty out of all the windows in the minivan. The only reason I see why I would prematurely turn my child forwardfacing (and with prematurely I mean before he/she hits the rearfacing weight limit) is true motion sickness. However, we are only ever in the car for 10-20 minutes in city traffic. Maybe once a month we travel for 1 hour or longer at a time. Even if my kid is was a screamer, and DS had a screaming in the car seat phase, it's only for like 10-20 minutes, and I tolerate that much better than the chance of internal decapitation in case of an accident. The screaming is horrible for me, but I focus on traffic and take comfort in knowing he is much, much safer this way. It was just a protest phase, and has nothing to do with rearfacing, but with being buckled in. Now if my infant starts crying I pull over, but we drive such short distances that it doesn't really come to that very often.


----------



## TerrahMother (Apr 21, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TerrahMother*
> 
> Rear facing is the SAFEST way to travel... Pass it on...
> 
> ...


Also, this video is advocating a FF 5-point harness from Britax (Regent model). I'd say this is the next safest option if you MUST turn the child around to face the front. IMHO, worth strong consideration:


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Britax Regent is safer than any other forward-facing harnessed carseat out there. It's also no longer manufactured, and buying a used carseat is generally considered unsafe (unless you trust the seller with your child's life).


----------



## TerrahMother (Apr 21, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chickabiddy*
> 
> There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Britax Regent is safer than any other forward-facing harnessed carseat out there. It's also no longer manufactured, and buying a used carseat is generally considered unsafe (unless you trust the seller with your child's life).


chickabiddy is right.

Just to clarify my post: Although the Britax Regent was mentioned as a specific example, I saw the point of the video being to look into a 5-point harness seat for front facing riders.


----------

