new british study about forward facing carseats...

Lady Heather - posted on 07/06/2011

Oh...my kid is 25 months and rear facing and it's not been a problem at all. I will go to four years old if she doesn't get to heavy (40lbs is the limit on my seat).



I know the first time I'd heard of ERF I was confused too. Where do their legs go? Will they be comfortable? Trust me ladies, unless your kid has some kind of medical issue that prevents them from crossing their legs for extended periods of time, it's no biggie. Think back to kindergarten. You did it all the time I bet. Broken legs are easy to fix, internal decapitation is a little more difficult.



I think it is probably hard to turn a kid back to rear facing once they've been forward. I imagine they would get angry about it. But when that's all they've known, meh. My daughter is perfectly happy back there. She chats to us and tells us what she can see out the window.

Lady Heather - posted on 07/06/2011

Mine should work until my kid is four...but I think they are easier to get here right now than they are in Britain.

Angela - posted on 06/24/2009

For some reason the video links don't show up but if you're interested let me know and I can e-mail them to you or you can just go to you tube and find them

Angela - posted on 06/24/2009

My 14 month old twin boys are still rear facing and will remain that ay until they are at least 35 pounds. It's so much safer. Check out this video and you'll see the huge difference in what happens to a child riding rear facing versus forward facing. It's pretty shocking. Our children's neck's and spine's are so fragile and need to be protected. I urge everyone to keep their little ones rear facing for as long as possible. It won't hurt their legs to be "scrunched" up. If you think about it when you watch kids play do they ever sit with their legs stretched out? Nope. They usually are squatting, kneeling, or crossing their legs in some way. Here's another video of older kids riding rear facing and they all look pretty happy to me. :)

Guggie - posted on 06/23/2009

lol i love how it still won't let me post links.

Guggie - posted on 06/23/2009

Quoting Alison:

Quoting Tamara:

I know in Sweden, its unusual to see a child forward facing before 4-5 years old.

Here is a gallery of children who continue to remain rear facing from the age of 1 into their 4th year. http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum...

 

Sweden, God love em. Its hard to find many aspects of parenting that hasn't been legislated to death in Northern Europe. The British government is desperate to follow them and often uses Sweden as an example of how to help us useless Brits be better parents. The British study is no exception to this rule.If it can save lives then it is a good thing if it doesn't do more harm than good.

It's safe to assume that some kids could end up with problems if they are crammed into a rear facing seat that is too small for them. In order to manufacture a seat big enough to be safe and comfortable might mean that it doesn't fit in all cars. If larger cars are required this will mean a larger impact on the envirionment thus causing some deaths. This in turn might defeat the object of RF seats which is to save lives. This is only a theory of my own. I have done no research to back it up so I half expect a few people on here to tell me I'm an idiot. Thats ok with me. I'm just throwing another theory into the debate.

 

 

I have a subaru wagon and can rearface my 4yo sister legally, safely and correctly. I think some cars are not easy to use safely, yes. But obviously that is why parents should take a few moments to research before buying a car and/or a carseat. There are tons of forums online where mamas debate what car is safest, what carseat is safest etc.

No one is saying to cram a kid into a rearfacing seat. They are just reaching a point where they can't deny the science and the studies. Hopefully this will result in safer seats and cars. Hopefully parents will take a moment to learn more about this issue and make a difference in their child's life.

Quoting Tamara:

I know in Sweden, its unusual to see a child forward facing before 4-5 years old.

Here is a gallery of children who continue to remain rear facing from the age of 1 into their 4th year. http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum...

Sweden, God love em. Its hard to find many aspects of parenting that hasn't been legislated to death in Northern Europe. The British government is desperate to follow them and often uses Sweden as an example of how to help us useless Brits be better parents. The British study is no exception to this rule.If it can save lives then it is a good thing if it doesn't do more harm than good.

It's safe to assume that some kids could end up with problems if they are crammed into a rear facing seat that is too small for them. In order to manufacture a seat big enough to be safe and comfortable might mean that it doesn't fit in all cars. If larger cars are required this will mean a larger impact on the envirionment thus causing some deaths. This in turn might defeat the object of RF seats which is to save lives. This is only a theory of my own. I have done no research to back it up so I half expect a few people on here to tell me I'm an idiot. Thats ok with me. I'm just throwing another theory into the debate.

Samantha - posted on 06/23/2009

Just to go with the above post, I AM a Certified Car Seat Tech.

Samantha - posted on 06/23/2009

Quoting Jocelyn:

i'm not sure where i stand on the BC booster rule, although i have a good friend who is only 4'9" and she had to sit on a foamy thing to drive lol so it does make sense :)
and as far as i'm concerned, i think i'd still keep my boy forward facing, but he'll use the harness system until he is too heavy for it. (which for ours is 40 lbs...but by the time he's that heavy he'll probably be 7 lol (skinny boy lol)
and i just keep picturing my boy rear facing, and getting in a crash, and having the strap loosen (for whatever reason) and having his legs get squished between something or he has his legs straight up and his knees get bent backwards (moms imagination eh?)

Jocelyn, please watch to make sure that your Son still fits this seat, as MOST car seats on the market that have a max weight limit of 40#, do NOT have a very high harness height, and MOST children will out grow those VERY quickly. 

A car seat is out grown for FF when one of the following is hit

- Max weight is reached

- Shoulders are ABOVE the top harnesses height (and please note that in all but the newest 3-in-1's the top harnesses slot CAN NOT be used in Harness mode, as its for Booster seat ONLY)

- Or the top of their ears are above the hard shell of the carseat!

There are NO known cases of children breaking their legs when RFing.  However there are MANY cases of children breaking their legs when they are FF in a collision, as due to the dynamics of a collision everything is thrown towards the front of the vehicle and their legs will slam into the seat in front of them. 

Although the law across Canada is minimum 20 pounds AND 1 Year old (some provinces its just a minimum of 20 pounds) every province has a Proper Use Law, and that means you MUST follow the guidlines that the manufacture has givin for each car seat.  ALL car seats state that a child MUST be 22# AND 1 year old before turning FF. 

But its STRONGLY recommnded that children now remain RF to the limits of their seat. 

Also know that the weight limits are set in stone (as all car seats are tested with weighted dummys), however the heigh limits are guidelines, as at 29" a child can be ALL legs or all Torso....For RFing, it is safe to keep your child in the seat AS long as they are under the weight limit AND there is More than an inch of HARD shell above their head.  

 Its fine for their legs to touch the back of the seat, they will bend in a collision, they will NOT break.  Children are VERY flexable, and DON'T tense up in a collision, as they don't usually realize whats going on until AFTER its happened. 

Micki - posted on 06/23/2009

I worry about their legs getting all smashed up. . . I know we won't make it much past a year. . .my daughter is 9 months and almost 30" already!

Sarah - posted on 06/23/2009

What i dont understand is that this research was done in britain but most of the rear facing car seats in england only hold up to 13kg and then they say that it is ok to put a child in a forward facing car seat when they are 9 months old and can hold their head up. This advice sort of contradicts their research

Andrea - posted on 06/23/2009

My son is 7 and weighs about 40lbs I could not imagine him still rear facing. This is crazy.

Betty - posted on 06/23/2009

Quoting Betsy:

Quoting Amy:

I'm sorry but if this became reality I think it is sad we are trying to find ways to make safe children safer, when there are so many children in unsafe situations all over the world. We lived in South Africa when my first 3 were quite young. We didn't have car seats most of the time for them and some of our vehicles didnt' have seat belts, plus usually we were so packed in the vehicle there was no room for car seats and the kids sat on people's laps. Were they the safest they could have been? no. Did they live through it all? yes.
I wish we would make as big a deal about the kids who are abandoned and raising siblings while they are children, about kids dying of malnutrition and being abused. Instead we worry about how long we should rear-face our children. Sorry, just my rant and opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone. I do want to keep my children safe, but I think we often forget their are so many people in the world who can't afford a car seat for their child and we are always buying new and better things.

Of course there are bad situations in the world, but shouldn't parents, the medical community and car seat manufacturers continue to become educated to prevent needless deaths of children regardless? That is like saying since there are children dying of disease and no cures are available to them yet, parents should concentrate ONLY on that and not feed their own children well when they can or don't watch them so they don't run into the street because there are children in the world who don't have healthy food or can't tun. That really isn't logical. It is every parent's job to become as educated as they can and to take every responsible measure to protect the children they create in every aspect possible. We do not help society by not making intelligent decisions and putting a child at risk where safety meaures are available just because another child somewhere in the world doesn't have the same safety measures. If that were the case we all shouldn't feed our kids healthy fruits and vegetables or give them access to dental or medical care because there are many children on our planet lacking those crucial things.  As for "living" through it. Chrildren have lived through heroin use during pregnancy, cancer, fires, abusive parents, etc, and just because a child survived through a bad situation, it doesn't make the majority of parents want to create those bad situations willingly for their kids. We learn more everyday as humans through education, dilligent work and advancements. That is why we have longer life spans and better infant mortality rates than our grandparents, who were far less educated as a world population. We cannot begin to work to help children throughout the world to live healthier, safer lives, with the equipment needed, if we are still having issues with parents taking the responsibility of that in areas where all the education and necessities are right there, available for them and their children. That needs to happen before we can spread that help elsewhere to children in need. If parents here in countries with all available don't care to make their own children's safety a big deal, then no, the time and funds wasted trying to repeatedly educate here will slow down it being a big deal, and people making these children's lives and safety a big deal, everywhere else, that is waiting for better options and education to keep their children safe.

Thankyou!  It's sad what excuses people come up with.  Are you all going to deny hearing about carseat safty if your child is killed in a fatal car crash just because you want to make cute faces at eachother while your driving?  Your right Betsy, kids have knees and can bend their leggs.   I have never met a child that was too tall for a standard carseat under the age of 4. 

Betsy - posted on 06/23/2009

Quoting Amy:

I'm sorry but if this became reality I think it is sad we are trying to find ways to make safe children safer, when there are so many children in unsafe situations all over the world. We lived in South Africa when my first 3 were quite young. We didn't have car seats most of the time for them and some of our vehicles didnt' have seat belts, plus usually we were so packed in the vehicle there was no room for car seats and the kids sat on people's laps. Were they the safest they could have been? no. Did they live through it all? yes.
I wish we would make as big a deal about the kids who are abandoned and raising siblings while they are children, about kids dying of malnutrition and being abused. Instead we worry about how long we should rear-face our children. Sorry, just my rant and opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone. I do want to keep my children safe, but I think we often forget their are so many people in the world who can't afford a car seat for their child and we are always buying new and better things.

Of course there are bad situations in the world, but shouldn't parents, the medical community and car seat manufacturers continue to become educated to prevent needless deaths of children regardless? That is like saying since there are children dying of disease and no cures are available to them yet, parents should concentrate ONLY on that and not feed their own children well when they can or don't watch them so they don't run into the street because there are children in the world who don't have healthy food or can't tun. That really isn't logical. It is every parent's job to become as educated as they can and to take every responsible measure to protect the children they create in every aspect possible. We do not help society by not making intelligent decisions and putting a child at risk where safety meaures are available just because another child somewhere in the world doesn't have the same safety measures. If that were the case we all shouldn't feed our kids healthy fruits and vegetables or give them access to dental or medical care because there are many children on our planet lacking those crucial things.  As for "living" through it. Chrildren have lived through heroin use during pregnancy, cancer, fires, abusive parents, etc, and just because a child survived through a bad situation, it doesn't make the majority of parents want to create those bad situations willingly for their kids. We learn more everyday as humans through education, dilligent work and advancements. That is why we have longer life spans and better infant mortality rates than our grandparents, who were far less educated as a world population. We cannot begin to work to help children throughout the world to live healthier, safer lives, with the equipment needed, if we are still having issues with parents taking the responsibility of that in areas where all the education and necessities are right there, available for them and their children. That needs to happen before we can spread that help elsewhere to children in need. If parents here in countries with all available don't care to make their own children's safety a big deal, then no, the time and funds wasted trying to repeatedly educate here will slow down it being a big deal, and people making these children's lives and safety a big deal, everywhere else, that is waiting for better options and education to keep their children safe.

Betty - posted on 06/23/2009

I don't see leg room as being a problem because they can sit with their leggs folded just like they would at a preschool. I think they call it 'cris cros apple sauce' these days and it's ferfactly comfortable. My sister kept her youngest rear faceing till she was two and she was a very big baby. They don't have to be in the tiny baby seats to face backward there are plenty of seats that can go either way that are big enuf for a four year old. I will keep mine rear facing as long as possible because I want my kids to be as safe as possible.

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

Quoting Amy:

I'm sorry but if this became reality I think it is sad we are trying to find ways to make safe children safer, when there are so many children in unsafe situations all over the world. We lived in South Africa when my first 3 were quite young. We didn't have car seats most of the time for them and some of our vehicles didnt' have seat belts, plus usually we were so packed in the vehicle there was no room for car seats and the kids sat on people's laps. Were they the safest they could have been? no. Did they live through it all? yes.
I wish we would make as big a deal about the kids who are abandoned and raising siblings while they are children, about kids dying of malnutrition and being abused. Instead we worry about how long we should rear-face our children. Sorry, just my rant and opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone. I do want to keep my children safe, but I think we often forget their are so many people in the world who can't afford a car seat for their child and we are always buying new and better things.

Here in the states the number one killer is car accidents. Even if the child is properly restrained...which as science and physics is showing us...the definition of properly restrained needs to be changed.

I'm sure other countries and areas need to take their own stats into account when formulating priorities.

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

well i give up. it must be quite a big glitch to stop my links from posting.



searching youtube will get you plenty of information...if you're willing to view it.

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

hmm interesting that my links won't show up.



the 1st link is a story w/ pictures:

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

I encourage everyone to view this video:







Here is a crash test showing both rear facing and forward facing:







All carseats in America now rearface to 35lbs.

Jennifer - posted on 06/22/2009

I'd heard that the longer you can keep someone rear facing the better. In fact when we went to a car seat inspection the lady said that if we could drive safely while rear facing, our crashes would be safer. LOL. However, my daughter got too tall for her car seat by the time she hit her third birthday (yes, the biggest size) and had to be moved to a booster. Not only would her legs have been too long to fit her rear facing, but her head was too high to be safely in that type of car seat when forward facing. At three, she could easily pass for 6 if it weren't for her baby face.

Mel - posted on 06/22/2009

i agree it is just so ridiculous and unfair. people are already most of the time changing their kids early, so why would they extend it even more im not sure. you feel so much more comfortable with ur child forward facing because you can see what they are doing and pass them toys rather then risking getting into an accident by trying to see if they are ok. ours wasnt at the weight limit but she was around 4-5 months when most babies (in australia) are turned around so we just made the switch anyway. first time her head control was not good enough and it wasnt working for her , second time was just fine. she did reach the weight mark eventually but not until she was about 13 months or so because she was alot smaller the most babies, but she was so long as well so she would never have been able to rear face to the american standard of one year and 22 lbs. gosh if we went by that she would be rear facing right now and she is over 80cm long at nearly 15 months. so stupid hey but im sure it will not bother anyone what their silly recommendations are and of course there are still some people they keep thier kids rear facing for years, i feel for their poor children and in my opinion it is wrong but that is just my views

Amy - posted on 06/22/2009

I'm sorry but if this became reality I think it is sad we are trying to find ways to make safe children safer, when there are so many children in unsafe situations all over the world. We lived in South Africa when my first 3 were quite young. We didn't have car seats most of the time for them and some of our vehicles didnt' have seat belts, plus usually we were so packed in the vehicle there was no room for car seats and the kids sat on people's laps. Were they the safest they could have been? no. Did they live through it all? yes.
I wish we would make as big a deal about the kids who are abandoned and raising siblings while they are children, about kids dying of malnutrition and being abused. Instead we worry about how long we should rear-face our children. Sorry, just my rant and opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone. I do want to keep my children safe, but I think we often forget their are so many people in the world who can't afford a car seat for their child and we are always buying new and better things.

Betsy - posted on 06/22/2009

I am also shocked people have an issue with this or feel it isn't possible. Mine have always stayed RF until 3, and they are quite comfortable. Most I know with children keep them rear-facing until 2-1/2 to 3-1/2, depending on when they reach the weight and height requirements of the seat they own. Their legs are fine, and no one has any problems. Kids do have knees, and they know how to bend them sitting. The reasoning how this saves children is uncomplicated and common sense, and considering auto accidents are #1 cause for deaths in young children, making sure they are the safest their parents can make them is crucial.

http://www.kyledavidmiller.org/pages/420...

When used correctly, rear-facing car seats provide significant safety advantages in frontal, frontal offset and side impacts. Frontal/frontal offset and side impacts occur most frequently, account for the majority of fatalities in accidents and are typically far more severe than rear impacts which in comparison account for a very small percentage of fatalities in accidents.

The forces for a forward-facing child in a frontal crash differ quite significantly to that of a rear-facing child:

** The rear-facing child has the frontal crash forces spread over their back, head and neck (a large portion of the body) in an accident. The rear-facing child is also supported by the back of the car seat meaning there is little stretching of the neck.

** The forward-facing child's torso is restrained by their harness straps. The head of the child however is restrained by nothing and thrusts violently forward, which places them at risk of serious spinal cord injury or even worse, death.

Rear-facing child restraints also offer significant safety advantages in side and frontal offset impacts. When rear-facing in a side-on or frontal offset impact, the head of the child is better kept within the confines of the seat and can reap the benefits of the restraints side wings for protection.




The anatomy of a young child is very different to that of a developed adult. This puts them more at risk for certain serious injuries. The head on a child is relatively large and very heavy in relation to the body. The head constitutes approximately twenty five per cent of the child's weight. For a developed adult, the head constitutes approximately six percent of their weight.

When the heavy head of the forward-facing child is thrust forward in an accident, this puts an enormous amount of stress on the child's neck, which is trying to hold back the head. The heavy weight of the child's head can stretch the spinal cord. "According to documented research, autopsy specimens of infant spines and ligaments allow for spinal column elongation of up to two inches, but the spinal cord ruptures if stretched more than 1/4 inch. Real-world experience has shown that a young child's skull can be literally ripped from her spine by the force of a crash." (source: CPSTE ). If the spinal cord stretches too far in an accident this can cause it to tear, thus resulting in paralysis or death of the child. This is often described as "internal decapitation".

Even babies who ‘appear’ to have strong neck muscles and good head control are susceptible to these risks.

Rear-facing car seats may not work as effectively in a rear impact but frontal, frontal offset and side impacts are not only more common, but account for the most percentage of fatalities. As discussed above, rear impacts account for a very small percentage of fatalities in accidents in comparison to frontal, frontal offset and side impacts.

http://www.diaperpin.com/articles/articl... Discusses the worst 5 reasons turn a child forward facing.

Guggie - posted on 06/22/2009

I know this has made it to the mainstream and is basically accepted by all the major medical organisations. Even the AAP says it is best to rearface to the maximum weight limits of the seat.



I never would have thought this was a controversial topic. Unclear maybe, but not hot button.





http://www.aap.org/family/carseatguide.h...



“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that all infants should ride rear-facing starting with their first ride home from the hospital. They should remain rear-facing until they reach the highest weight or height allowed by their car safety seat’s manufacturer. At a minimum, children should ride rear-facing until they have reached at least 1 year of age and weigh at least 20 pounds.”

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrea...

“Rear-facing is the safest position the child can ride in. It is strongly recommended that all children stay rear-facing beyond the minimum requirements of 1 year and 20 lbs. Children should not be turned forward-facing until they reach the maximum rear-facing limits of a convertible seat.”

http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

“When used properly, rear-facing carseats provide significant safety advantages in frontal, frontal offset and side impacts. These types of crashes are far more frequent and severe than rear-end crashes. For these reasons, rear-facing is the safest mode of travel, especially for infants. In the USA, this recommendation is valid through the 30, 33 or 35 pound maximum rear-facing weight limit of newer convertible carseats, or until the child outgrows their convertible carseat by height. The height limit of a rear-facing carseat may be listed in the owner's manual. A child is also considered too tall for a rear-facing seat if the top of their head is at the level of the top of the carseat shell. It is NOT considered a safety issue if a child's legs are bent at the knees in a rear-facing carseat, or if their feet can touch the vehicle's seat back. At a very minimum, children should remain rear-facing until AT LEAST one year of age AND 20 pounds in weight. In countries like Sweden, children are often kept rear-facing much longer, even to 3 or 4 years old. Auto related injury and death rates for rear-facing children in Sweden are near zero because of this.”

Jenifer - posted on 06/22/2009

Quoting Amie:

Ok read all the posts... didn't take me that long I had to get up and go deal with fighting siblings. LOL.

Anyway... I honestly don't get the whole idea behind this. To my understanding these tests are based on head on collisions. Head on collisions are rare though. The majority of accidents are side/angle collisions.
I've been in one such accident when my oldest was 18 months old. She was forward facing.. but even if she had been rear facing it would have done her no good. She still would have been tossed side to side like she was in the forward facing seat.

Actually, head on or offset crashes are the most common (72% of severe crashes). A head on crash also tends to be a much more severe crash since the cars are usually moving at a higher velocity and in opposite directions. The statistics are here:

http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html

But more importantly, the study linked to already indicated the improvement in safety existed for all types of crashes, not just the head on ones.

Jocelyn - posted on 06/22/2009

Quoting Amie:

Quoting Jocelyn:

i googled average weight, and for a boy this is what it said (for a) 4 yr old weight--35 -37 lbs and height 37 inches

but that seems small to me...or maybe all the kids i know are just huge lol. my son is already 37 inches and he's only 2.5
i can see the shorter babes staying rear facing longer, but by the time my son is 4 yrs he's probably gonna be at least 4 feet tall!

OMG where did they get that average? Maybe I just have huge kids... that's the size of my 2 year old!! and she is a girl!!

Ok onto reading the rest of the posts... lol.

  lol i know hey, that's a really small average...i just googled it and the top three all said about the same.... i don't know what they were basing it on... maybe pygmy children? LOL

Amie - posted on 06/22/2009

Ok read all the posts... didn't take me that long I had to get up and go deal with fighting siblings. LOL.

Anyway... I honestly don't get the whole idea behind this. To my understanding these tests are based on head on collisions. Head on collisions are rare though. The majority of accidents are side/angle collisions.
I've been in one such accident when my oldest was 18 months old. She was forward facing.. but even if she had been rear facing it would have done her no good. She still would have been tossed side to side like she was in the forward facing seat.

Lily - posted on 06/22/2009

That is all well and good but how on earth is that going to work? My son was in a forward facing seat by the time he was 9 months old because he was so long his legs had to rest pointing up on the seat! there is no way you are going to be able to get a child to stay that way until they are 4.

Traci - posted on 06/22/2009

If they want to make kids face the rear then they need to redesign cars with seats that face backward, because there is NO WAY kids can fit comfortably in a seat facing the rear. And they will also need to install permanent vomit bags because I know my kids would get SOOOO car sick if they had to face the rear of the car. :)



If we wait long enough, they'll do a thousand more studies and they will change their minds again...that's how all that stuff goes....one year it's this, the next year it is that...

Amie - posted on 06/22/2009

Quoting Jocelyn:

i googled average weight, and for a boy this is what it said (for a) 4 yr old weight--35 -37 lbs and height 37 inches

but that seems small to me...or maybe all the kids i know are just huge lol. my son is already 37 inches and he's only 2.5
i can see the shorter babes staying rear facing longer, but by the time my son is 4 yrs he's probably gonna be at least 4 feet tall!

OMG where did they get that average? Maybe I just have huge kids... that's the size of my 2 year old!! and she is a girl!!

Ok onto reading the rest of the posts... lol.

Amie - posted on 06/22/2009

Quoting Jocelyn:

i googled average weight, and for a boy this is what it said (for a) 4 yr old weight--35 -37 lbs and height 37 inches

but that seems small to me...or maybe all the kids i know are just huge lol. my son is already 37 inches and he's only 2.5
i can see the shorter babes staying rear facing longer, but by the time my son is 4 yrs he's probably gonna be at least 4 feet tall!

OMG where did they get that average? Maybe I just have huge kids... that's the size of my 2 year old!! and she is a girl!!

Ok onto reading the rest of the posts... lol.

Jeanne - posted on 06/22/2009

Geez...my boy barely made it to a year in the rear-facing...he was so tall that his legs extended past the car seat for two months before we put him in forward facing. Next thing you'll know they'll tell us to keep them on formula and only formula until they are a year old....geez...how did we survive all these years without these studies? I wonder how come the human race just didn't die out of stupidity or implode.

Sarah - posted on 06/22/2009

My son will be RF until he reaches the limit for his seat...then FF until we outgrow that seat. Then into a harnessed booster until he's legitimately ready and able to sit with a belt positioning booster. I feel like this is one of the areas where I can do more to ensure my son's safety and I will take every step possible to do so. Car accidents are very dangerous for children. And yes, I understand that "we all did just fine" with what our parents put us in...but I think we have to ask, how many of us were involved in car accidents at when we were in those situation? Sure, we survived...but what was the impact to those who were involved in accidents. I'm not going to base my child's safety on the fact that I survived childhood (partially) because I was not involved in any accidents. Ask someone who was involved in an accident what they would do for their child...or ask someone who has had a child lost or injured in an accident...I doubt the recommendations would seem so out of the question to those people.

I think it's interesting that we (as adults) impose our own views onto children's experiences. For an adult, no it would not be comfortable to sit with our legs the way they are for older RF children. But for most children it is actually not uncomfortable. In fact, many report being uncomfortable FF because there is nothing to support their feet, leading to their legs falling asleep. Kids can bend themselves into all sorts of positions that we can't even imagine and actually be more comfortable. However, if we as parents tell them that it's uncomfortable or not cool or whatever to be RF, of course they are going to report feeling that way. In other words, we put the idea into their heads, not the other way around most of the time.

Holly - posted on 06/22/2009

I think this is a bunch of carp. Keeping a child of that age rear facing is obsurd. From what I understand, the percentage of children that would benefit from rear facing until 4 was about 10%. That is not a majority or a major minority! If it is safer to be facing backwards, why aren't all seats rear-facing? (including adult seats)

Kelly - posted on 06/22/2009

This is not a new topic. Studies have been going on for years, all of which say the same thing - Keep them rearwards for as long as possible.
It's due to a child's bone density. If they face the front too early their bones will bend and the force of an impact will transfer to their internal organs instead of being absorbed by their ribs.
Some manufacturers in Norway and Sweden have been working on rearward facing seats (see rearfacingcarseats.com)
Here in New Zealand it's suggested that parents keep children in at least a 5 point harness (over shoulders, around waist and between legs) for as long as possible.
We have started to prepare our 4 1/2 year old that some kids at school won't use a car seat anymore, but we just stress to him that we will always try to keep him safe - even if it's not cool.

Rhionna - posted on 06/20/2009

Quoting Tamara:

Quoting Rhionna:

Talk about parents wrapping their kids in cotton wool!
i've kept my boys in their rear facing ones until they eached the weight limit on the seat. They were both over a year old before they reached 9kg, the age on the seat said approx 9 months! by the time that they were heavy enough they were just about too long for the seat as well.
When we were kids we just had to use an adult seat belt, I just feel like we are in too much of a nanny state in this country now, when are we as parents going to be able to make decisions on how to bring our kids up, and what "risks" we are willing to let them take in order for them to become more rounded individuals.

Its not wrapping your child in cotton wool to reduce known risks of forward facing a child in their carseat before their spines are ready.  This is a short video of a crash test that convinced me, hopefully it will convince you too

Quoting Sandra:

Quoting Jocelyn:

new british study about forward facing carseats...

The results of a British study were just released the other day and it says that children should be in a rear-facing car seat until they are at least 4 years old. Any opinions?
I think they are going to have a hell of a time trying to design one that a kid would actually fit in AND have it fit in the back seat of the car at the same time. And my son would hate it lol. he's gotta be able to see everything :)

 

Hi Jocelyn

I think for my son it would to long as he is 2 now and 31 pounds. So he is a big boy and very tall. But I guess if that was the new rules in BC I guess I would have to do it.

But I have no idea where his FEET would go since he is very tall for his age. He look more like he is 3 years old instead of two.

I guess they would have to make cars or trucks with holes in the back seats. Because my sons feet hang over his seat now about 1' or so.

If someone finds a picture of this post it. My husband was just say we should post a picture of our son sitting in his seat both ways. LOL.

Did Alberta's rule for infant car seats or booster change? In BC as of April 1st ICBC changed the all children must be in a booster till 9 years old now or 4'9" don't quote me on inches , I know the feet is right but the inches I could be off. Their was no weight with this new restriction!

My second son is 8 years old hasn't reached the height yet or age. He loves this full size booster because it has cup holder for his drinks.LOL.

But a lots of our friends that had to purchase new booster in April because they already had their children sitting in the seat of the car for a year now.

This is the site had has the new rules for ICBC. Hope it opens.

http://www.traffic-safety.ca/news/200708...

It will be very interesting to see what happens with his new rule.

 

no, the rules in Alberta haven't changed.  and i don't remember hearing anything about them trying to change them any time soon.  (maybe its a redneck thing! LOL.) it's still under 40lbs or under 6 yrs that have to be in a restraint of some sorts.  after that it is just "recomended" that they stay in a booster until 80lbs or 8 yrs old.

Jocelyn - posted on 06/20/2009

i'm not sure where i stand on the BC booster rule, although i have a good friend who is only 4'9" and she had to sit on a foamy thing to drive lol so it does make sense :)
and as far as i'm concerned, i think i'd still keep my boy forward facing, but he'll use the harness system until he is too heavy for it. (which for ours is 40 lbs...but by the time he's that heavy he'll probably be 7 lol (skinny boy lol)
and i just keep picturing my boy rear facing, and getting in a crash, and having the strap loosen (for whatever reason) and having his legs get squished between something or he has his legs straight up and his knees get bent backwards (moms imagination eh?)

Sandra - posted on 06/20/2009

Thanks Marina
Type O error,
* Booster Seat: 18 kg (40 lb.) or over. in Canada
&. also as of April 1 the children have to be 9 years old or 4'9" for BC in booster now.

Sandra - posted on 06/20/2009

The Canada Safety Council recommends:

* Rear-facing Infant Seat: Birth to 10 kg (22 lb.)
* Forward-facing Child Seat: 10 to 18 kg (22 - 40 lb.)
* Booster Seat: 18 kg (40 lb.) or over &. also as of April 1 the children have to be 9 years old or 4'9" tall.
*

Even thou my son is a big boy and heavy we kept him rear facing longer because of his AGE he is still in the car seat recommended for his age and weight. I don't thing anytime soon we will be changing him because he weighs more than most children he is still young I would like his spine to develop more before changing him.
My older son is still in his booster and he loves his seat even thou BC states 9 years old I am sure he will be in this seat till at least 10 years old because of this weight being lighter. I personal don't break the law in BC or any where else. If this new recommendation came to BC or Canada I would have to respect that. Because I want my children to be safe.

Sandra - posted on 06/20/2009

Quoting Tamara:

Quoting Sandra:

But I have no idea where his FEET would go since he is very tall for his age. He look more like he is 3 years old instead of two.

I guess they would have to make cars or trucks with holes in the back seats. Because my sons feet hang over his seat now about 1' or so.

Kids who ERF just sit indian style (cross-legged) in their seats.  Mine's 20 months and does so in her RF seat.  I fully intend to rear-face her for as long as possible simply because its so much safer.

 

After I wrote where the feet would go I say you post with picture of children. It's very interesting. I wonder if this rule would ever hit BC,Canada.

My son sat rear facing longer than he had too because he was very heavy boy but we felt he was too young to be turn. So we went longer than the recommented by BC Rules from ICBC.

Tamara - posted on 06/20/2009

Quoting Rhionna:

Talk about parents wrapping their kids in cotton wool!
i've kept my boys in their rear facing ones until they eached the weight limit on the seat. They were both over a year old before they reached 9kg, the age on the seat said approx 9 months! by the time that they were heavy enough they were just about too long for the seat as well.
When we were kids we just had to use an adult seat belt, I just feel like we are in too much of a nanny state in this country now, when are we as parents going to be able to make decisions on how to bring our kids up, and what "risks" we are willing to let them take in order for them to become more rounded individuals.

Its not wrapping your child in cotton wool to reduce known risks of forward facing a child in their carseat before their spines are ready.  This is a short video of a crash test that convinced me, hopefully it will convince you too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8mFsXNXO...

Tamara - posted on 06/20/2009

Quoting Sandra:

But I have no idea where his FEET would go since he is very tall for his age. He look more like he is 3 years old instead of two.

I guess they would have to make cars or trucks with holes in the back seats. Because my sons feet hang over his seat now about 1' or so.

Kids who ERF just sit indian style (cross-legged) in their seats.  Mine's 20 months and does so in her RF seat.  I fully intend to rear-face her for as long as possible simply because its so much safer.

Kate - posted on 06/20/2009

The reason for rear-facing so long is because no matter how heavy/tall a kid is, their spines are not developed enough to withstand the collision forces. Most tall kids just cross their legs in their seats. At a minimum, kids should rear face until age 2, and no matter how tall/heavy they are (I don't know ANY 1-year-olds who are over 35 lbs. and 36", the limit on most convertible seats) they should NEVER EVER turn around before 1 year. Never. If you have to buy a convertible seat after the infant seat instead of going straight to a forward-facing only toddler seat, do it!! Your kid might be big but his body is NOT developed enough to turn around. Buying a new seat that doesn't properly suit your kid, or turning your kid "because he doesn't like to rear face" is LAZY PARENTING! Keeping your kid safe is much more important.

DD (17 mo.) is over 32" and 22 lbs. and is still rear facing and will be until she outgrows her seat.

Sandra - posted on 06/20/2009

Quoting Jocelyn:

new british study about forward facing carseats...

The results of a British study were just released the other day and it says that children should be in a rear-facing car seat until they are at least 4 years old. Any opinions?
I think they are going to have a hell of a time trying to design one that a kid would actually fit in AND have it fit in the back seat of the car at the same time. And my son would hate it lol. he's gotta be able to see everything :)

Hi Jocelyn

I think for my son it would to long as he is 2 now and 31 pounds. So he is a big boy and very tall. But I guess if that was the new rules in BC I guess I would have to do it.

But I have no idea where his FEET would go since he is very tall for his age. He look more like he is 3 years old instead of two.

I guess they would have to make cars or trucks with holes in the back seats. Because my sons feet hang over his seat now about 1' or so.

If someone finds a picture of this post it. My husband was just say we should post a picture of our son sitting in his seat both ways. LOL.

Did Alberta's rule for infant car seats or booster change? In BC as of April 1st ICBC changed the all children must be in a booster till 9 years old now or 4'9" don't quote me on inches , I know the feet is right but the inches I could be off. Their was no weight with this new restriction!

My second son is 8 years old hasn't reached the height yet or age. He loves this full size booster because it has cup holder for his drinks.LOL.

But a lots of our friends that had to purchase new booster in April because they already had their children sitting in the seat of the car for a year now.

This is the site had has the new rules for ICBC. Hope it opens.

http://www.traffic-safety.ca/news/200708...

It will be very interesting to see what happens with his new rule.

Rhionna - posted on 06/20/2009

Talk about parents wrapping their kids in cotton wool!
i've kept my boys in their rear facing ones until they eached the weight limit on the seat. They were both over a year old before they reached 9kg, the age on the seat said approx 9 months! by the time that they were heavy enough they were just about too long for the seat as well.
When we were kids we just had to use an adult seat belt, I just feel like we are in too much of a nanny state in this country now, when are we as parents going to be able to make decisions on how to bring our kids up, and what "risks" we are willing to let them take in order for them to become more rounded individuals.

Tamara - posted on 06/20/2009

I know in Sweden, its unusual to see a child forward facing before 4-5 years old.

Here is a gallery of children who continue to remain rear facing from the age of 1 into their 4th year. http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum...

Jessica - posted on 06/20/2009

That is ridiculous. My son is 3 and he would go bonkers if he had to be rear-facing in his car seat. He likes to be able to look out and watch everything go by. He also likes to be able to see me if the hubby is driving. My son is on the tall side and would be so scrunched up if we had to change things