# New AAP Guidelines: Keep RFing to age 2!



## Shelsi (Apr 4, 2005)

I didn't see this posted yet. Hooray to the AAP! http://aapnews.aappublications.org/c...full/30/4/12-a








:







:







:







:


----------



## Chloe'sMama (Oct 14, 2008)

Hurray! I am going to share this with all of my parents groups.

Thanks-


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Now I hope that peds get on board with this.


----------



## AVeryGoodYear (Mar 31, 2009)

Innnnteresting! If this becomes the new standard, I guess I will have to buy one of those mirrors to see my baby when she's rear-facing, because I'm not sitting in the back seat with her for two years! it's cramped back there


----------



## caro113 (Aug 25, 2008)

very interesting. I'm sure no one outside of here will agree with that though. I really don't mind keeping her RFing if it keeps her safer.

Thanks for posting!!


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The sad thing it that it took them what, eight years to update their recommendation. I have a paper from the AAP published in 2002 from a study done in 2001 where they recognize that ERF is safest (to the limits of the seat, not just two).


----------



## KaliShanti (Mar 23, 2008)

Cool! My almost 2-yr-old is still RFing







I don't have ANY other friends whose toddlers are, though.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Well we were just at the pedi yesterday and the nurse was a CPST. Granted the first question she asked was if my (21 pound!) two year old was in a 5 point harness, and said that my 3.5 year old was "getting to the age of a high back booster" but was very happy they are both RF, made sure we have seats with high RF limits and mentioned it's 5 times safer. I think the poor woman must set her expectations very low. There is some education getting around out there.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

Is this actually for real? I'm asking because there was a spoof AAP link in the Lactivism Forum about the AAP and formula companies. If this vehicle safety news is legit, then that's wonderful! If it's not, we can keep hoping they'll change it soon!


----------



## Shelsi (Apr 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
Is this actually for real? I'm asking because there was a spoof AAP link in the Lactivism Forum about the AAP and formula companies. If this vehicle safety news is legit, then that's wonderful! If it's not, we can keep hoping they'll change it soon!

You scared me so I went to AAP's main site (not from my link but from a google search) and searched for it from there and I found it. So it's real! yay!


----------



## MiamiMami (Feb 1, 2005)

Oh good! I am posting this on my FB!


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Only 2?
Well, it's certainly taking the states time to get to where we are.
Surely, they must have the same research that we do, clearly stating that rearfacing is the best for as long as possible, and should be done until at least 4 yo.
They are concidering making it a law here, that all kids must be rearfacing until at least the age of 4.

(I realise you need to get seats that have higher weight limits and higher slots first, but Britax (just to mention one brand you also have) has them and are selling them here.)


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pixiekisses* 
Only 2?
Well, it's certainly taking the states time to get to where we are.
Surely, they must have the same research that is saying that rearfacing is the best for as long as possible, and more like 4 years than 2.
They are concidering making it a law here, that all kids must be rearfacing until at least the age of 4.

Sigh... I wish that seats here were AVAILABLE to keep kids rf until 4. Most kids outgrow all seats by weight before 4. Dd is skinny skinny skinny and she barely would have made 4 by weight for a carseat- and it's warm here, so clothes are lightweight (no jeans, boots, etc)

-Angela


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I think if they suddenly jumped the recomendations from 1 to 4, parents wouldn't comply. It's not that unreasonable to keep your toddler RFing a bit longer- then maybe they'll extend the RFing recomendations furthur in a few years, when more seats are available and affordable. Britax seats are NOT affordable for everybody.

I was able to keep DS RFing until 2.5, when he got too tall for his seat. Had the recomendation been to RF until age 3, I wouldn't have been able to do so.


----------



## Ruthie's momma (May 2, 2008)

Yay! That is so awesome! It is about time!


----------



## jillmamma (Apr 11, 2005)

Great! More info to share with naysayers that wonder why in the world my 3.5 year old is still RF in her Britax Decathlon. At 26 lb, I think she will be RF for awhile yet. I would like her to get to at least age 4 which I don't think will be a problem.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla* 
I think if they suddenly jumped the recomendations from 1 to 4, parents wouldn't comply. It's not that unreasonable to keep your toddler RFing a bit longer- then maybe they'll extend the RFing recomendations furthur in a few years, when more seats are available and affordable. Britax seats are NOT affordable for everybody.

I sure hope you are right, and that they will not take long to recomend longer RFing than 2 yo.
But, Britax seats expensive? Really?
Here, Britax is one of the cheapest brands available.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Here, Britax is the most expensive seat by far. It's a luxury status symbol. (Obviously, it's also used by people who just like it. But people who do look for a luxury status symbol car seat, get a Britax.)

Maybe the AAP can also lobby for higher weight limits rf, so that those toddlers who reach 35 pounds at 18 months can continue to rf up to 24 months.


----------



## *Aimee* (Jan 8, 2007)

Now I wish we could get higher RF limit seats. DS1 is almost 3 and 37lbs and DS2 will be one in a week and is 29lbs. Our britax only goes to 33lbs and I can't talk DH into buying a new one for 2lbs. DS1 was ff by 18 months. It sucks


----------



## Mama2Rio (Oct 25, 2008)

i'm sending this to my neighbor who i talked out of ff her lo at 8 months!


----------



## homewithtwinsmama (Jan 5, 2005)

How does anyone do this? My kids knees were up by their ears soon after their first birthdays. There is no way I could keep them RFing that long.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homewithtwinsmama* 
How does anyone do this? My kids knees were up by their ears soon after their first birthdays. There is no way I could keep them RFing that long.

Where their feet and legs are doesn't matter. Kids are flexible. Dd rf until 3.5yrs old. She crossed her legs or hung them over the sides.

-Angela


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Where their feet and legs are doesn't matter. Kids are flexible. Dd rf until 3.5yrs old. She crossed her legs or hung them over the sides.

-Angela

yup. My kids are all taller than average, and are still comfortable rear-facing past two. In fact, the only reason we turned our 3rd child at 2.5 yrs was because he reached the weight limit of his seat, his legs are long but he bent/folded them with no complaints.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

I agree it would be impossible to say "4 years" but "to the limits" is what the AAP has been advocating since 2001. However, it's easier to grasp "oh ok 2 years" than it is some random "35 pounds." When you are pregnant 35 pounds seems like eons away. My skinny minny almost- 4 year old is too tall for all seats but 2, and she's getting closer to the weight limit as well.


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Great news! I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing higher limit seats in the states.


----------



## somelady (Nov 16, 2008)

I thought the higher weight limit seats required the foot which can't be tested in the current us tests?


----------



## Shelsi (Apr 4, 2005)

I thought ppl liked to sit scrunched up. Seriously. I mean I'm sitting here right now in an office chair and my legs are all folded up on it, it's just way more comfortable than sitting "properly."


----------



## caro113 (Aug 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shelsi* 
I thought ppl liked to sit scrunched up. Seriously. I mean I'm sitting here right now in an office chair and my legs are all folded up on it, it's just way more comfortable than sitting "properly."

Ditto. I do the same thing all the time, especially in the car. It really annoys people too and I don't get it. Even the few times I drive I pull the seat all the way up, and I'm not short (5' 7").







: Oh well

I'm thinking now I will keep my LO RFing for as long as possible, whatever keeps her safer. That's most important.


----------



## Smalls181 (May 12, 2006)

Well this is making my day!!! Its probably too late for parents who couldn't wait to turn their 1 year olds around. But for those with newborns, I think this will definitely help keep kids RF longer.


----------



## Hesperia (Sep 3, 2007)

Just need a small vent here where people know exactly how I feel.

I just put this link on my facebook and wrote a note, and tagged all the new mamas.

I got one comment that said "Horsepucky! This is far beyond rediculus..."
ugh,






















I said, Why do you think so?
And she replied with more "kids with padded walls, no merry go rounds etc". I linked her to some videos showing FF vs RF.

Anyone have more links to share with this new mama...I feel awful too cause she was a client. And, I'm rotten with confrontation, but trying really hard to break that every day, so here we are.
Spam me with education. Please!


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shelsi* 
I thought ppl liked to sit scrunched up. Seriously. I mean I'm sitting here right now in an office chair and my legs are all folded up on it, it's just way more comfortable than sitting "properly."

Me too!!! I am much more comfy this way


----------



## isabchi (Sep 14, 2006)

:







:







:


----------



## treehugginhippie (Nov 29, 2004)

So is this an _official_ guideline that the AAP has revised or just an article suggesting it? So would the new guideline be 2 yrs AND 20lbs?


----------



## somelady (Nov 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caro113* 
Ditto. I do the same thing all the time, especially in the car. It really annoys people too and I don't get it. Even the few times I drive I pull the seat all the way up, and I'm not short (5' 7").







: Oh well

I'm thinking now I will keep my LO RFing for as long as possible, whatever keeps her safer. That's most important.

I did this well into my third trimester of pregnancy, made my officemate twinge something awful (he was a tall guy who I think has done it involuntarily one too many times







)


----------



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

Quote:


Originally Posted by *treehugginhippie* 
So is this an _official_ guideline that the AAP has revised or just an article suggesting it? So would the new guideline be 2 yrs AND 20lbs?

well, it came from their official newsletter









that said, the AAP site has yet to change their information. I think we should all email them and encourage them to hurry up


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lolar2*
Here, Britax is the most expensive seat by far. It's a luxury status symbol. (Obviously, it's also used by people who just like it. But people who do look for a luxury status symbol car seat, get a Britax.)

Wow, I never thought about a car seat as a status symbol before.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *homewithtwinsmama* 
How does anyone do this? My kids knees were up by their ears soon after their first birthdays. There is no way I could keep them RFing that long.

It doesn't matter where their legs are, bent legs are not dangerous at all.
My two 5.5 yo. are currently still rearfacing, they are tall for their ages, they have their legs to the sides, or cross them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14* 
Great news! I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing higher limit seats in the states.

Me too. (And I don't even live there.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *somelady* 
I thought the higher weight limit seats required the foot which can't be tested in the current us tests?

Not here, there are seats that RF to like 55 pounds 2 oz here, w/o that foot. Our seats (Britax) have foots, but there are also both Britax seats and other brands w/o the foot.


----------



## Pumpkin_Pie (Oct 10, 2006)

Yippee!!! Now if only my son will stay a skinny minny long enough for the US to get higher weight limit seats. I soooooo do not want to turn him ff. He is tall, and he rides with his legs splayed out in a "V" on the back seat. He doesn't mind one little bit.


----------



## ishyfishie (Dec 20, 2006)

I was excited over this because I've been trying to find a way to share extended RFing info with a local forum I'm on without sounding preachy about it, so I posted the article with some other links (including the crash test videos). It led to a decent discussion about bent legs, etc, but then it came to light that NY has *no* rear-facing requirement. I always thought 1 year/20 lbs was the law pretty much everywhere? I'm in shock. It looks like it's the case in a lot of states.

I'm hoping the discussions and other links will make an impact on some mamas despite the lack of a decent law!







:


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

AS long as they don't make it illegal to ff before 2, then I don't really care what the aap recommends. I don't follow a lot of their recommendations (vax, etc)


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ishyfishie* 
I was excited over this because I've been trying to find a way to share extended RFing info with a local forum I'm on without sounding preachy about it, so I posted the article with some other links (including the crash test videos). It led to a decent discussion about bent legs, etc, *but then it came to light that NY has *no* rear-facing requirement.* I always thought 1 year/20 lbs was the law pretty much everywhere? I'm in shock. It looks like it's the case in a lot of states.

I'm hoping the discussions and other links will make an impact on some mamas despite the lack of a decent law!







:


----------



## treehugginhippie (Nov 29, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caro113* 
Ditto. I do the same thing all the time, especially in the car. It really annoys people too and I don't get it. Even the few times I drive I pull the seat all the way up, and I'm not short (5' 7").







: Oh well
.

I know this is OT but wanted to point out...Are you talking about moving the drivers seat as close as possible to the front? I read somewhere...on my car's sunvisor or manual I think...that because of the airbags, you should sit as _far back as possible_ from the steering wheel. Unless you don't have airbags. Also, I think your legs etc are at greater risk for injury in an accident when you sit closer than you need to be.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 









I'm confused--you're glad there's no requirement?


----------



## Shelsi (Apr 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *goodheartedmama* 
I'm confused--you're glad there's no requirement?

I think she meant because otherwise she would be breaking the law every time she sat in a parked but running car nursing her baby.


----------



## jenneology (Oct 22, 2007)

Interesting! Now when are they going to up the recommended length of time for breastfeeding?


----------



## ishyfishie (Dec 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Shelsi* 
I think she meant because otherwise she would be breaking the law every time she sat in a parked but running car nursing her baby.

I don't think so. The applauding was posted in response to my statement where she bolded the part where I said NY has no rear-facing requirement at all, just a "properly restrained" law. (Which, for the record, I personally don't consider to be a good thing at all.)


----------



## Romana (Mar 3, 2006)

I really hope this doesn't become a requirement (i.e., law). I agree that RF is best, to the height and weight limits, *almost* always. However, I came here and to other forums, some specifically focused just on carseat safety, with the problems I had keeping my then-18 month old daughter in her RF convertible seat. The problem was that she was a houdini. Not only could she get her arms out - no matter how snug you made the straps - once she had her arms loose, when RF she would push up and out of the seat almost instantly. I contacted the manufacturer (Britax) and they had no suggestions. I tried everything I could think of and everything that was suggested. I even contemplated essentially sewing her into the thing, but felt that it would be too difficult to remove her in an emergency.

She also screamed hysterically and fought terribly hard any time we put her into the seat. It was heartbreaking. We minimized car travel as much as possible but our area is not served by public transportation and nothing is within walking distance.

Since she had passed the age and weight recommendations, we decided, reluctantly, to try FF. She stopped screaming and being hysterical about being put in the seat immediately. She was unable to push up and out of the seat, so while she still sometimes got her arms free, we had time to pull over and stop and get her in again before she was actually out of the seat.

She was about 19 mos at the time. I really don't regret it. We wanted to FF longer but it really seemed more unsafe to RF because she was so unhappy and escaping from the seat.

She's 3 and she's small enough that we could turn her RF again, but I'm wary of what her reaction would be. I've considered trying it. I may try it.

All I'm saying is that recommendations in situations like this are often better than laws, because laws don't take any individual situations into account. There should be _some_ flexibility.

ETA: My son is totally different in the seat. He turned 1 recently and I anticipate keeping him RF to the limit (35 lbs). We aren't having ANY of the same problems.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *goodheartedmama* 
I'm confused--you're glad there's no requirement?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Romana9+2* 
All I'm saying is that recommendations in situations like this are often better than laws, because laws don't take any individual situations into account. There should be _some_ flexibility.


I agree with Ramona. We certainly don't need more legislation in this country.


----------



## pastrygirl (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ishyfishie* 
I don't think so. The applauding was posted in response to my statement where she bolded the part where I said NY has no rear-facing requirement at all, just a "properly restrained" law. (Which, for the record, I personally don't consider to be a good thing at all.)

If the NY law is written as a "proper use" law, then that would make rear-facing until age 1 and 20 pounds, if not longer, the only legal option. No car seats let you forward-face before 1 and 20, and some manufacturers have additional forward-facing limits that children won't reach until after a year or even two years (height minimum, age minimum, weight minimum). So, even a "properly retrained" law can mandate a minimum rear-facing time period, thankfully!


----------



## Shelsi (Apr 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vbactivist* 
I agree with Ramona. We certainly don't need more legislation in this country.

But we already have car seat legislation and it's outdated. If we're going to have it, it may as well be in the best interest of the public and based on current recommendations and research.


----------



## chickabiddy (Jan 30, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ishyfishie* 
I don't think so. The applauding was posted in response to my statement where she bolded the part where I said NY has no rear-facing requirement at all, just a "properly restrained" law. (Which, for the record, I personally don't consider to be a good thing at all.)

Apologies im advamce, missimg key mext to m.

Actually, "properly restraimed" is pretty good. There is mo curremt seat that allows forward-facimg before 1 year amd 20 poumds (mamy are 22 poumds), amd some have a 34" requirememt as well. If the seat is used agaimst those directioms, it is mot properly used, therefore illegal.


----------



## momof2kiddos (Dec 24, 2008)

I am so glad to see this. One of my sitters kept my DD RF tell 2 and I have but I only had FF seats at the time.I am also harnessing as long as possible. I am going to pass this on to my other sitter who thinks I am nuts.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

Michigan is another proper use state, and I sure hope that as this becomes AAP policy, the car seats will be stickered to read "to be used rear-facing until 2 and 30" instead of "1 and 20" that would, in effect, make it illegal to forward-face before 2.

And for the record, I completely disagree with vbactivist. Laws are there to protect people too little to protect themselves. If parents aren't willing to keep their children safe, I'm glad the law does. There is nothing subjective about car seats, like there are with vaccines.

Car seats keep kids safer. Infants and toddlers are safest rear facing. No debate, no arguing about this point.


----------



## urchin_grey (Sep 26, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
There is nothing subjective about car seats, like there are with vaccines.

Car seats keep kids safer. Infants and toddlers are safest rear facing. No debate, no arguing about this point.









:

I am ecstatic to see that the AAP has changed their recommendation and I hope the law and CR manufacturers follow suit. We need some seats that go beyond 35lbs RF'ing in the US.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

I get the argument, I guess, but like someone else said, it's not as subjective as vaccines. There's no denying that it's safer. Parents just aren't going to pay attention until it's the law, though. I don't know how I really feel when I start to think about it, but there HAS to be some laws in place in order to protect our children. The question is--what should be left up to parent discretion, and what should be mandated by law in order to protect children when their parents refuse to?


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
Michigan is another proper use state, and I sure hope that as this becomes AAP policy, the car seats will be stickered to read "to be used rear-facing until 2 and 30" instead of "1 and 20" that would, in effect, make it illegal to forward-face before 2.

Right, but the rf weight limits would really need to be increased if it was 2 AND 30. DS just turned 2 and weighs 38 pounds; if he had been rf up to age 2, he would have been rf above the rf weight limit for several months.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Hopefully manufacturers will start putting seats on the market in the US that will allow rear facing longer so the bigger kids can remain so. I agree that the law doesn't go far enough, and that the littlest members of our society need protection. Not all parents are doing what they can to keep their children safe in cars, and the children end up paying the price.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

Two OR 30 pounds would be ideal...my DD is 25 months and 21 pounds so we'll get eons out of a 35 lb seat.

The proper use clause is a very good thing, but unforntunately most people see it as "oh yay there is no minimum to FF anymore". Well, the intent was to encourage ERF, since most manufacturers recommend it, and ALL manufacturers require one year AND 20 (or 22/23 pounds, or 34 inches, or what have you) to FF.


----------



## ishyfishie (Dec 20, 2006)

I didn't realize the seats themselves say 1 and 20 lbs, I was thinking they only mentioned weight! That's good, then, I'll pass that along.

I agree that "2 or 30 lbs" (or something along those lines) would be a better way to word it if it became law.


----------



## JudiAU (Jun 29, 2008)

This is terrific news. If the standard had existed a few months ago I probably would have been able to persuade DS that another rf car seat was in order.

With this news in mind, does anyone have a handy guide to carseats with the highest height and weight limits? I would like to cross-post to a couple of other boards I read with new mommas, off-mothering land.


----------



## an_aurora (Jun 2, 2006)

The seats that will get you the most time RF'ing are the following (descending order, and all have 35 pound RF'ing weight limits and harness to at least 50 lbs):

First Years True Fit
Sunshine Kids Radian
Recaro Como and Signo
Evenflo Triumph Advance
the *new* Dorel 3-in-1 seats (AOE, Eddie Bauer, etc)
Britax Marathon, Boulevard, and Decathlon


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

I agree that 2 OR 30 would be a great law. As long as it is also stipulated that the child who is 30 lbs ALSO has to be over a year old (just to cover the rare case). Of course, that means I could legally turn my 20 month old who is 30 lbs, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *treehugginhippie* 
So is this an _official_ guideline that the AAP has revised or just an article suggesting it? So would the new guideline be 2 yrs AND 20lbs?

Not the case with my skinny kids, but how many 2 year olds are beyond the 33 or 35 pound weight limit? I'm just curious how practical it is with what seats are on the market now. It would probably make more sense to say 2 years OR 33 lbs. I think it's unlikely a kid would outgrow seats by height before 2, and if they hit the 33 lbs mark they n eed to be turned (unless it's one of the 35 lb seats of course).


----------



## DahliaRW (Apr 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RachelEve14* 
Not the case with my skinny kids, but how many 2 year olds are beyond the 33 or 35 pound weight limit? I'm just curious how practical it is with what seats are on the market now. It would probably make more sense to say 2 years OR 33 lbs. I think it's unlikely a kid would outgrow seats by height before 2, and if they hit the 33 lbs mark they n eed to be turned (unless it's one of the 35 lb seats of course).

Well, it will depend on the seat. The roundabout both of my boys probably would outgrow by height close to two. The old evenflo my oldest outgrew rfing at 11 months, my youngest at 16 months by height. The radian by weight before height (I have a 33lb model, my oldest may have made it to 35 in that, it would have been really close).


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

"All I'm saying is that recommendations in situations like this are often better than laws, because laws don't take any individual situations into account. There should be some flexibility."

Amen. One thing I keep seeing over and over again is people who can do a decent FFing install, but a really crappy RFing install, with their particular car-and-carseat combination. In those situations, I'd prefer that parents knew of the AAP recommendation, but were still able to use their discretion. The biggest problem with carseats, of course, is that they are dangerous as hell when improperly installed. Installation has caused me more angst than any other car seat decision for any of my kids.

That said, I am very hopeful that this new recommendation will inspire US car seat retailers to give me some more choices in the convertible-seat arena!


----------



## MaryJaneLouise (Jul 26, 2005)

I thought the AAP recs already were to RF to the limit of your car seat?


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Just a thought, but if a parent is only going to listen to an AAP rec instead of reading their manuals and really knowing proper usage of their seat, there could be kids riding RF that are too tall (like it seats like the roundabout, diplomat, comfortsport). I know my skinny little girl is too tall for the comfortsport now RF. Just a thought. I'm glad the rec is in place now, but it's a thought I had.


----------



## mamarootoo (Sep 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ilovemyavery* 
And for the record, I completely disagree with vbactivist. Laws are there to protect people too little to protect themselves. If parents aren't willing to keep their children safe, I'm glad the law does. There is nothing subjective about car seats, like there are with vaccines.

Car seats keep kids safer. Infants and toddlers are safest rear facing. No debate, no arguing about this point.

by that same logic, though, kids are safer if they are never IN a car at all, but obviously, we don't want laws that make it impossible to drive anywhere.

it's a slippery slope when you start legislating things like this, which is what vbactivist's post said to me.

now, before anyone gets too flame happy, i am totally supportive of anyone who keeps their kiddo RF as long as possible. there are reasons that some kids (the minority by far, of course) are safer *overall* FF, though. there was a post on this thread that cited one of those circumstances.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamarootoo* 
by that same logic, though, kids are safer if they are never IN a car at all, but obviously, we don't want laws that make it impossible to drive anywhere.

it's a slippery slope when you start legislating things like this, which is what vbactivist's post said to me.

now, before anyone gets too flame happy, i am totally supportive of anyone who keeps their kiddo RF as long as possible. there are reasons that some kids (the minority by far, of course) are safer *overall* FF, though. there was a post on this thread that cited one of those circumstances.

Thank you , Laura


----------

