- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Babies: 3 - 6 Months
MrsEllis10
member
Car seats & the way they face
MrsEllis10
member
Ok so I know the rule is for rear facing until 2 years old, but EVERYONE I know does not put their kid rear facing once they go into a convertible carseat. I have asked a few of them why (the ones I know won't get offended with a question) and they all say they don't find it necessary.
Why if it is recommended and safer are people not doing it?
What are your thoughts?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Car seats & the way they face
Because they are not so smart? Especially if you are talking about under 1 year/20 lbs, which is the bare minimum requirement.
Sam was rear facing until over three years old. He's an average size kid, and never complained. Even road one day in my niece's FF seat out of necessity (puked on his car seat in the middle of a trip, and her seat was clean and available.) and went back to his RF seat no problem.
Because they don't know better. Or they think FF is more convenient and they decide convenience wins out over safety. A lot of people just plain don't know it is safer to ride RF. Or they are concerned about the kids legs, but that isn't a legitimate concern. Kids are flexible and will bend their legs or put them up the seat...they will find a way to be comfy. And I think there are statistics that more FF kids break their legs in crashes than RF kids.
I try to explain the reasons why DS is still RF by just saying it is much safer. If they are open to why, then I try to explain in more detail.
Its newly recommended to keep them to at least 2 RF now, so maybe they dont know better? I was told by a car seat tech that rearfacing is the safest, and each level up in carseats/boosters you go, you actually go down in safety.
Very vivid, but rear facing is best because of the risk of internal decapitation in FF. If you hit something head on, the inertia makes your body lunge forward - the head snaps forward and has resulted in the spinal cord breaking. If they are facing backwards, they are actually cradled up and back into the carseat.
No. One particular mom I am talking about has a 9 month old. This is her exact response:
I think that rear facing until they are 2 is ridiculous..... I think its too old for kids to not be able to see where they are going LOL. I personally just don't see the need. I don't think it could be anything but marginally safer... Her carseat has teathers* that strap up on the head rest and down under the seat. And as long as she is strapped in the actual seat correctly I have no worri es
plus she is much happier being able to see us and haven better
Haven is her 3 year old.
Okay, this is going to be really upsetting, but hopefully some people that read this post might reconsider if they are not putting a child rear facing.
I work on an ambulance.. and I was on a call once not too long ago where a lady had a newborn (rearfacing) and a child under the age of 2 forward facing. She crashed head on into another vehicle. The child that was forward facing got ejected out of the front windshield, where the other child didn't seem to be affected at all. The child that got ejected was in critical condition and we flew him to Children's Hospital. I never did hear the end result of it, but I'm not sure it would have been good. To me, if the child was bigger and forward facing, it might not have been so bad. That's probably why they want you to wait until 2 years.
I don't know why people take convenience over safety. I definitely will have my child rearfacing until atleast 2 years old. My DD is a chubby little girl, she is 4 months and weighs 16lbs. Her carseat right now only holds up to 22lbs, then we will be switching to a convertible carseat. SHE WILL STILL BE REARFACING!
Unfortunately, people won't find it "necessary" until they learn the hard way.
Both of my guys are RF. I will tell you that it is a total PITA putting my 2 year old in his RF carseat, but we do it. His legs are scrunched, but he is fine with it. I have noticed that hardly anyone in his DC class is RF. We do look forward to having him FF someday. I would love to turn around and see his smile.
There are some videos on You Tube that illustrate why RF is best.
Go Phils!!
A. Because they don't know better
B. Because they think its too inconvenient
C. Because they think their kid will be too tall
D. Because their friends don't do it.
The AAP article recently came to light, but extended rear-facing is nothing new. In fact, if you read your car seat manual most, if not all, will tell you that the minimum to forward face is 1 and 20, but that a child should remain rear-facing to the limits of their seat.
My DD was born almost 4 years ago, and I knew about it then. She rear-faced until 2, forward faced until she was 2.5, and then ASKED to be rear-facing again because she liked it so much more. She then rear-faced for around another 6-7 months before I turned her forward facing again.
Many parents believe their child is too tall to rear-face past 1 year, but in the majority of cases, that simply isn't the case. My 17 month old is 33 1/4" tall and he still fits perfectly rear-facing, and I am aiming for at least 2.5-3 years and hopefully he doesn't outgrow his seat rear-facing before then. I think we have about 4" to go.
We also recently had an accident where a car was rear-ended by a semi truck. The rear-facing infant lived, and the forward facing 2 year old did not. Could be a coincidence but maybe not.
Sweden has their children rear-facing to the age of 4, and they have a lower mortality rate for children in accidents. The statistics are there, but some people just choose not to acknowledge it.
This is a true story, and should convince anyone to rear-face longer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8gU9zzCGA8