Rear facing Dilemma

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Ooops, sorry.....you like?? Today is Toonie tuesday. Cheap...cheap...cheap meals.



MMmmmmmm...mmmmmm

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

Mmm....Dixie Lee....

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Well Ladies, I am off to take my Darling Daughter out for Lunch. I just got a facebook message saying this....



"Wanna go to Dixie Lee? -Stomach Growling- Uhhhh... Answer fast!!! lol :P" LOLOLOLOL



Spoiled much??

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Thank you for that. That is what I have been saying all along. Now, if she wasn't to the height and weight limit I wouldn't have turned her. Well, I could have bought a larger seat, yes, however I was a single mom on assistance and I was going to buy a seat she would stay in for as long as possible. I wasn't going to purchase a seat she would have outgrown in no time. Anyways, I am sure they will come out with one seat that fits all stages eventually....won't that be nice.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

If she was over the height and weight of her seat, then you were right to turn her. It's dangerous to have someone rear-facing when they've outgrown their seat.



It IS kind of a shame that you didn't know then what you know now -- you could have bought a higher-limit seat. I bought one for my son, mainly because I was pretty sure he'd be a chunk.

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Actually, I never said front facing was safer then rear facing. I said I questioned the AAP recommendations of extended rear facing. ONLY because I was defending the decision I made with MY daughter when I came under fire and was called uneducated and uncaring. And I didn't see anyone else say that either, although, I was gone for about 4 days and admittedly, did not go thru all the posts. Every link you just posted and quoted, *I* followed. My daughter was over the height and weight of her seat. Granted she was 3 weeks from turning a year, so I suppose technically I was wrong and should have waited the 3 more weeks.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

They're all saying the same thing, MB -- that it is safest to wait until the child has basically outgrown their rear-facing seat.



And I'm not trying to make you feel like shit for turning your kid.



But I'm baffled as fuck as to why you're so determined to refuse to believe that it really IS safer to rear-face for longer than the law dictates. Seriously -- is it a personal insult to you that there is now information out there that shows that it's safer?

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

If rear facing isn't safer then why rear face at all? Why not just start our newborns forward facing?



There are moms here who did what you did, but now they say they would do it differently. Now we know it's safer to stay RF longer. If parents look at all this info and still decide to turn their kid around then that's their choice. I would LOVE to keep my almost 3 year old RF. I'm tempted to go back out and work with the seats again and see if I can figure out a way. My daughter is well over the law and the recommended age for forward facing, but this info makes me want to find a way to keep her RF. I suppose that's why I don't understand how a parent of a much younger child would be ok turning them at a year.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

Well, here's the direct quote from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation:



"When the child outgrows the maximum height and weight of his/her infant seat, you may require a convertible rear-facing seat until your child is ready to be facing forward. The law requires using a rear-facing car seat until the baby is at least 9 kilograms (20 lb.)



The law is a minimum requirement. It’s best to keep your child rear-facing until they are at least one year old or until they have reached either the maximum height or weight limits of the rear-facing seat."



http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/...





From peelregion.ca: "It’s recommended that a child remain rear facing as long as possible in a seat that will accommodate the highest weight and height limit possible."





The Alberta Motor Association also addresses rear-end collisions:



"Best Practice (based on injury research) – Because an infant’s head is much larger proportionally than an adult’s, placing an infant forward-facing puts them at increased risk of spinal cord injuries from the head whipping forward in a frontal or rear collision. Keeping them rear facing allows the head, neck and back to be supported by the back of the child seat. They must always be in a seat appropriate for their weight and they must remain rear facing until a minimum of 9 kg. (20 pounds). It is also safest if parents wait until the child’s first birthday before turning them forward.

Injury research shows that children are safest facing the rear as long as possible, in the middle of the back seat. "



http://www.ama.ab.ca/automotive/child-ca...





So...several of us have provided links and information showing that rear-facing is safer.



I have yet to see you or Sally providing proof that rear-facing is not safer.

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Anyways, it doesn't matter. My daughter is almost as tall as me,,,,soon to tower over me. I just don't think members should make other members feel like shit for following what the law says, what MTO says, what the fire fighters are saying, considering they are the ones who do our child car seat safety. If people want to follow the AAP's recommendation, all the power to them but don't mock and belittle others for not doing the same.

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

??? The limits of the seat....this doesn't say indefinitely. My child met all those requirements....so why was everyone up my ass??



http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safed...



"Stage 1: Rear-facing seats are placed at a 45-degree angle so that your baby’s head is supported. This makes it easier for them to breathe. A snug harness will keep your baby safe in a sudden stop or crash. Keep your child in the rear-facing seat for as long as they are still in the weight/height range of the seat itself.

Stage 2: Forward-facing seats have harness straps that are narrower than a vehicle seat belt and fits children's small shoulders.



As long your child is still in the weight/height range of the seat itself, you can still safely use the child seat.

Stage 3: Booster seats are designed to allow children to use seat belts who no longer need forward-facing seats. The booster seat positions a child properly so that the seat belt is correctly located on the lap and shoulder.

Stage 4: Seat belts are used when children are tall enough to use a seat belt that is properly positioned over their lap and shoulder without needing a booster seat.

Choose the stage that is right for your child (1, 2, 3 or 4?)



This chart shows the weight range of children recommended for all four Car Time Stages based on child seats and booster seats sold in stores today. All child seats are different. Make sure you read the label on the child seat carefully; to make sure your child fits the weight and height range of the child restraint – BEFORE YOU BUY IT."

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

The Canadian Pediatric Society also says to keep them rear-facing until they reach the limits of their seat:



Infants should be in rear-facing car seats until they are at least 1 year of age and

weigh 10 kg (22 lb.). Rear-facing car seats should be used as long as the child

meets the weight and height limits in the manufacturer’s instructions.



http://www.cps.ca/English/media/AnnualCo...

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

"Actually, Mother B, as I pointed out downthread, the Ministry of Transportation does recommend that children remain in each car seat stage for as long as possible."



---I was referring to this comment.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

I already DID, but okay.



They say, "Keep your child in the rear-facing seat for as long as they are still in the weight/height range of the seat itself."



And they also say, in bold letters, "It is safest to keep your child in each stage for as long as possible"



They're definitely not saying, "Go ahead and turn your kid around as soon as it's legal."





http://www.circleofmoms.com/track_link.p...



Mind you, this is Transport Canada, not the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. But you did say that Transport Canada doesn't endorse extended rear-facing, so this information definitely seems to contradict your claim.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

The law is the MINIMUM requirement. Who wants to do the minimum when it comes to our children's safety?

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/...



"The law requires using a rear-facing car seat until the baby is at least 9 kilograms (20 lb.)



The law is a minimum requirement. It’s best to keep your child rear-facing until they are at least one year old or until they have reached either the maximum height or weight limits of the rear-facing seat.



Birth to 9 kg (20 lb.)

Rear-facing seat

Use away from an active airbag"

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

I think you're incorrect. Maybe you could provide the link and quotes from that.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

Actually, Mother B, as I pointed out downthread, the Ministry of Transportation does recommend that children remain in each car seat stage for as long as possible. So they ARE, in essence, promoting extended rear-facing.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

I never used the words "uncaring" "uneducated" etc.



So you just want to disagree just because, but have nothing to back you up?



How is it that Sweden has drastically reduced children dying in auto accidents when they started keeping their kids rear facing until 4+ years then? Just a coincidence?

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

You seem to be missing the point.......no one is telling you, you're a bad parent. No one called you uneducated and uncaring and no one is trying to convince you NOT to do something everyone else seems to endorse. You however ARE trying to tell people that. Sorry Love, the onus is on you to prove your facts. all your videos and links all say.....rear facing is not effective in REAR END CRASHES. So, either you trust your own links....or you don't. It really matters not to me.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

You're right. When she talked about the legs not being injured I was thinking about how parents think that their legs will be broken when rear-ended. This debate won't matter for much longer because the laws will catch up soon.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

Nope. I knew this long before the AAP caught up because I was told it was "ok" to turn my kid around at a year. I researched and it's not. If videos can be made by anyone and links with crash tests are crap then where are your links and videos? Prove to me that rear facing in a rear end crash is dangerous.

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

"You've provided zero facts, just what you were told."



---Hello Pot....meet kettle. Why do you have your beliefs Sara? Because YOU were told by someone. anyone can pull a video off of youtube and anyone can upload one. Because AAP changed their recommendations? Phhhffffffffft......they only ever refer to front end crashes. I think I'm with the Police Sageant or detective or whichever his title is. His entire police detachment doesn't endorse AAP, the Toronto Detachment doesn't either, The Ministry of Transportation, doesn't, Trans Canada, doesn't......so who are ALL these government agencies that are endorsing it??



"The second video addresses rear end crashes too"



---No it doesn't.





Bottom line. If you choose to follow AAP, good for you. But if you choose to follow all the other Government Agencies that deal with highway and transportation safety.......you're still a good parent.





ETA:: The Fire fighters Association doesn't endorse the AAP recommendations either....they endorse the MTO recommendations.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

The second video addresses rear end crashes too and this person is trained in child passenger safety. If you don't want to believe facts, that's fine. I just want mom's that may see this who truly don't know that rear facing is safer to see facts and there are several links in videos that show just that. You've provided zero facts, just what you were told.

Mother - posted on 03/27/2012

Atta girl Sally. Now you're getting the hang of it. ;)

Sally - posted on 03/27/2012

LOL. I think Sara if you go back and listen to your OWN video is says at about 1:47, IF they are in a frontal crash. Again, nothing about rear end crashes.



" I'm sure your son in law is a great detective"



Yes, he sure is. That's all I need to know.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

This is who you should talk to: a child passenger safety tech. I'm sure your son in law is a great detective, but this lady spends her life devoted to the safety of children in cars.

Sally - posted on 03/27/2012

"So you're more concerned with what?"



I'm not concerned anymore, my mind was put at ease.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

So you're more concerned with what? You think a child's legs might be broken? Even if they were, isn't that better than a broken neck?

Sally - posted on 03/27/2012

Really Sara? I'm looking for the effects of a REAR END COLLISION. Not a front end collision. Regardless, my mind was put to rest by my son in law. As a highly decorated Police Detective, I think he would know better then anyone on here. Until such a time the law changes, I'm happy with the decisions my children have made. :)

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/27/2012

At 2:14 it shows the rear facing crash test. I'll bet Joel's grandpa wishes he knew what you know now even though you're unwilling to admit it.

Sally - posted on 03/27/2012

Sara, I've seen that video, it only shows front end collisions. After my dinner guests left I spoke at length to all my daughters, I couldn't wait for Easter. The two older ones don't have small children anymore but told me they all turned at around a year. The two younger ones still have wee babies so I asked them. The one whose husband is a Police detective says this debate is everywhere and he says there are pros and cons to both. The comment that rear facing collisions result in very little injury he said is laughable and that someone was just trying to make a point and shut me up.



He agreed that many front end collisions are at higher speeds when they are a single car accidents. He stated but of those accidents the majority is not families. Those are usually the younger drivers who are inexperienced, distracted drivers, talking on the phone, texting, have a car load of friends, driving too fast or under the influence. He said, I was right that for most front end collisions there is a matching rear end collision. He said "while the damage to the vehicle always looks worse to the car behind, the injuries are very similar in both vehicles. He went on to say that the car in front that was struck from behind usually has more lasting effects because they didn't know the collision was coming but the car behind had time to brace for it. He also said many people in the rear car who do brace have arm injuries. He said it's an ongoing battle with equal numbers on both sides. He said however if the front end collision was at as high a speed as you ladies were talking, that it wouldn't make much difference as it usually ends in fatalities to all parties.



He went on to say that side impacts and rollovers, the car seat didn't make much difference if it was facing one way or the other. So, there, I feel much better and rested a lot better then I had the night prior. I was feeling like a horrible Grandmother. I don't drive the children around much but the thought that I was causing harm somehow haunted me. And it angered me that such rotten things were being said about my children. You Ladies are free to argue amongst yourselves, I trust what he has to say.



Also, Krista, I know you'll ask. He said, their detachment does not endorse the AAP's recommendations but it doesn't mean it is wrong. Neither one is WRONG. He said, whatever is going to make the parent driver less distracted, with a feeling of contentment, is the best choice. He said, its fine and well for mothers to rear face their babies but if someone like myself, wasn't comfortable with that technique, I could become a road hazard by paying more attention to the children on board.

April - posted on 03/27/2012

I just bought my 3 year old a brand new car seat just so he can rear face probably only for one more year. His last seat rear faced to 40lbs and 36 inches. He is 38 inches and 35 pounds. His new car seat rear faces to 45 pounds and the height is 56 inches! If he hits 45 pounds by 4 years old, hey, that is one more year of being safer. The seat was nearly 300 dollars. I sold my car to pay for it (not one that i was driving) and I would go back and do that again. Absolutely.

Krista - posted on 03/27/2012

Yeah, there's definitely no need to buy a whackload of car seats.



At the time that I bought my son's car seat, both the law AND the recommendations were one year and 20 lbs. I'd never heard of extended rear-facing. However, I come from a family of rather large people, so I did not want to take the risk of him outgrowing the seat before his first birthday.



So I originally had his infant carrier, which worked until he was 20lbs, and then bought a Graco MyRide 65, which allows rear-facing up until 40lbs. I did that just on the off-chance that my kid would be really big. This car seat will rear-face up to 40 lbs, and front-face up to 65 lbs. So this car seat will do him just fine until he's old enough for a booster seat.



And neither of those car seats were unduly expensive.



Please watch Sara's video. It's very eye-opening.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/26/2012

This is the only video I can find with good images of front facing vs. rear facing in a crash. This story is told by Joel's grandpa. He suffered a broken neck while riding forward facing at 18 months. At least watch the crash test. Watch how the child's head is thrown forward and compare that to the rear facing test. If that doesn't convince you that it's safer to rear face then I honestly don't know what will. The crash tests are at 1:40, but the whole story should be heard by every parents, grandparent, etc.

Sherri - posted on 03/26/2012

My son has only ever had 3 carseats (it would have only been two but we were in a car accident and it had to be replaced) His infant one and a convertible one. He will be 6 in May and still in his convertible car seat and will be until he can go into a regular seat belt probably around 8 or 9yrs old.

*Fluffy Bunnies - posted on 03/26/2012

Way back when, Sally, you said you would need to buy 4 or more car seats per child with the extended rear-facing law. Nope. You don't. You can buy 1 convertible seat. If you buy certain ones that may be all you need or you may need a booster for when they're older. I choose to get an infant seat (which I've used for 2 kids so far) and a convertible seat.

Mother - posted on 03/26/2012

WOW.....this is still going on? Are you kidding me??? Krista, you can interpret the previous conversations however you wish. I wouldn't change anything about my decisions IF all the variables were the same. I'm not saying it because of pride and I certainly never suggested anyone follow my example. Shit. I've been wrong hundreds of times and I'll probably be wrong a hundred more times. I don't believe this decision was wrong. I turned my daughter 3 weeks before her year birthday and she was 26 pounds. She had already outgrown the weight and height of her seat [which is still the requirements] and we put her into the next stage car seat. There was nothing wrong with my decision then and actually nothing wrong with it now.



Sally brought up some very valid points, one in particular that I question myself. Judging by her friends and family as well, the extended rear facing isn't as prevalent as everyone would like to think. Sally is right, certain people on here are way too quick to chastise others, I'm just not as bothered by it as Sally seemed to be. I'm not ashamed of my decisions and I'd pretty much laughed off all the flack that was thrown in my general direction.

Krista - posted on 03/26/2012

Mm, see that's not how I read that exchange at all.



One poster was saying that she had turned her child FF a bit early. This was at a time when both the laws AND all of the recommendations were 1 year and 20 lbs.



The others were basically asking, "If you'd known then, what we all know now...would you have done anything differently?"



And the response was no, which obviously baffled the hell out of many people here. I know it baffled the heck out of me.



I don't doubt for one SECOND that 5 years from now, there will probably be guidelines out that will be very different than those that were around when my son was born. I don't doubt for a second that my kids will probably someday say to me, "You did WHAT?!?! Didn't you know any better?!?!"



And I'll say, "Nope. That was the best information that we had at the time."



But I HOPE that I will have the grace and humility to acknowledge that if I had known differently, I would have done things differently. I've seen too many mothers on COM who are ruled by their pride and who flat-out refuse to admit that something they did might now be considered outdated or dangerous, and those are the mothers who you see recommending outdated, dangerous things like putting cereal in baby bottles and rubbing booze on their gums for teething.

Sherri - posted on 03/26/2012

Things are obviously slightly different in Canada. Because here in the states it is very widely known to keep your children rear facing till at least 2yrs and is given out and explained in most pediatricians offices, hospitals, police stations, fire stations etc.

Sally - posted on 03/26/2012

"And who's berating parents? Most of us here are simply justifying our OWN choices to keep our kids rear-facing for longer than the law requires"



No Krista, you're right, you aren't berating anyone. However, the first day I came in here a handful of members were. They called another member uncaring and uneducated because she had turned her child around early. I admit, I did get on the defense because my own daughters all turned their children at the year and/or over the 20 pound guideline. as a Grandmother, I am unaware of the laws but figured my children wouldn't steer me wrong. My children are not uncaring and certainly are not uneducated. So, I did some reading and what I found was it is really only this one site [AAP] that states this and then everyone else cites the AAP as a reference. The members made it sound like this is old news and the member was just choosing to ignore the facts. My point is, what if parents don't read the AAP. What if they follow the laws of the land, it doesn't make them bad parents.



Earlier, I put that call into my son-in-law and he gave me that site. I later called to ask them about the child seat "recommendations" As an upstanding Police Detective he assured me that following the law doesn't make you a bad parent. He also told me this recommendation from AAP just changed last year. My dinner guests and I spoke about this at length. When I told them about the booster seat recommendation of 80-100 pounds they were as shocked as I was. One made mention that their one daughter didn't reach over 100 until well into college. Then made a joke about, are they suppose to bring their booster seat to do their driving exam? LOL A little humour goes a long way sometime.



So, while you're justifying YOUR choices, many others are not. They are just interested in tearing down other members and insinuating they are bad parents because they don't follow these beloved guidelines.

Krista - posted on 03/26/2012

You and I must be reading the TC site differently, because that's the exact site I referenced. They say to keep the child rear-facing until the child outgrows the seat's limits.



They also say, "Keep your child in the rear-facing seat for as long as they are still in the weight/height range of the seat itself."



And they also say, in bold letters, "It is safest to keep your child in each stage for as long as possible"



They're definitely not saying, "Go ahead and turn your kid around as soon as it's legal."



And who's berating parents? Most of us here are simply justifying our OWN choices to keep our kids rear-facing for longer than the law requires.

Sally - posted on 03/26/2012

Of course AAP endorses it because it is the AAP that everyone is citing. So including them in their own recommendation is ridiculous. Transport Canada actually follows MTO recommendation as far as I could find as does the Toronto Police Services. So, exactly who is EVERYONE who is endorsing this, other then AAP themselves?



http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/traffic/c...



http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safed...



Sherri, you are free to talk to the wall. I am only trying to get clarification to something I don't believe to be the end all and be all of everything. Parents are being berated for their choices and yet it seems all the government systems are saying the same thing. Except the AAP. Oh wait and the US highway traffic safety. So apparently ALL the other organizations are also uncaring and uneducated?



My dinner guests have arrived. I will look at that link after dinner. BTW, it isn't ANOTHER study, it will be the FIRST study put up.

Sherri - posted on 03/26/2012

This may be the stupidest and most frustrating debate that I have ever had with another adult. I would have more luck talking to the wall in front of me.

Krista - posted on 03/26/2012

The AAP also endorses it.



Transport Canada also endorses it.



The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration endorses it.



These are not dinky little organizations or parent-run blogs. So yes, i engaged in some hyperbole when I said that every organization endorses extended rear-facing.



However, I asked you earlier -- has any organization come out specifically against it? Because I have yet to see that.



Oh, and here's another study showing that rear-facing is safer:



http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/...

Sally - posted on 03/26/2012

LOL, so you went from saying "that every single regulatory body, police agency,government, have ALL come out saying that rear-facing is safer." to saying, one organization endorses it. I went to the St John Ambulance site and all it said was the child car seat safety program shows parents how to properly install seats but I didn't go on a mad search either. Our Toronto Police also state the MTO regulations and say nothing about endorsing the AAP recommendations. People say a lot of things it doesn't make them true. Kinda like you saying EVERY SINGLE police agency and government endorse this etc etc. When in fact, that wasn't true at all.



I would think Police would know about safety as well.

Krista - posted on 03/26/2012

Your link did not mention it, no. But nor do they come out and say that it's NOT safer, do they?



Oh, and also, St. John’s Ambulance recommends leaving your child rear facing as long as possible.



I would think that they'd know something about safety.

Sally - posted on 03/26/2012

You stated that "the fact of the matter is that every single regulatory body, police agency,government, as well as the AAP, have ALL come out saying that rear-facing is safer. "



I posted this to show that that statement was false.

Krista - posted on 03/26/2012

Where does it clearly state that rear-facing babies are not safe from rear-end collisions?



And yes, the current laws do state 1 year and 22 (or 20lbs). Keep in mind that laws are much more difficult to change than regulations.



Oh, and just as an aside, Transport Canada ALSO says that a child should be rear-facing "until your child outgrows the seat's weight/height limits, but no sooner than when the child has reached 22lbs."



Laws are MINIMUM requirements.

Sally - posted on 03/26/2012

I'm not opposed to the idea. I'm trying to understand why the fuss. Rear end collisions are not as innocent as you make them out to be. Major injury does result from them, for driver and passengers. And it clearly states that rear facing babies are NOT effectively safe from rear end collisions. As far as police detachments and government officials, they all endorse what MTO states which is a year and now 22 pounds up from 20 pounds. My son in law is a Police Detective, so I put a call into him.



He told me to go here

http://kpf.ca/buyingacarseatp48.php