cmarango Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I was reading in the other thread that rear facing is safer due to neck muscles still developing in younger children. As I pondered this I was wondering if rear facing is safest for all types of car accients. My dh argues that front facing is better if we are ever rear ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zusjames Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You need to read Superfreakeconomics.... You'll never think of car seats the same again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I was reading in the other thread that rear facing is safer due to neck muscles still developing in younger children. As I pondered this I was wondering if rear facing is safest for all types of car accients. My dh argues that front facing is better if we are ever rear ended. Car seat safety geeks all say rear facing is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarango Posted April 1, 2011 Author Share Posted April 1, 2011 Can you give a synopsis? I am afraid that I am way behind on my current reading list. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbt1294 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I put this on the other post, but our pediatrician years ago said to never be in a hurry to switch the kiddos around. He said that if they made cars that could be driven while the occupants rode backwards that we would all be safer. I don't think rear end collisions are typically (typically I said) as forceful as head on collisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barb_ Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 The thought is, rear-facing is better because statistically you are least likely to be rear-ended than any other type of crash. If you are rear-ended then safety drops to equal what it would be forward facing in any other type of accident. That said, I would also suggest Freakanomics. Or was it Superfreakanomics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You need to read Superfreakeconomics.... You'll never think of car seats the same again.... That has been totally discredited! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I put this on the other post, but our pediatrician years ago said to never be in a hurry to switch the kiddos around. He said that if they made cars that could be driven while the occupants rode backwards that we would all be safer. I don't think rear end collisions are typically (typically I said) as forceful as head on collisions. :iagree: If you are rear-ended, both cars are traveling the same direction. Headon collisions are usually cars traveling in opposite directions, so the force is much greater. Rear-facing is SO SO SO much safer! And 5 point harnesses are much much safer than boosters, so even after you are forward-facing, keep those kiddos harnessed as long as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LidiyaDawn Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 You need to read Superfreakeconomics.... You'll never think of car seats the same again.... That has been totally discredited! :) This board is always good for opposite positions! :laugh: (I have no idea what it is, just had to laugh at the "this is the best!" and "this is the worst!" right in the same thread) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Doesn't Superfreakonomics basically just state that the carseat industry is out to get your $$$ by scaring you into spending needlessly on carseats? Or am I wrong? Like it's all some big conspiracy or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 (edited) I was reading in the other thread that rear facing is safer due to neck muscles still developing in younger children. As I pondered this I was wondering if rear facing is safest for all types of car accients. My dh argues that front facing is better if we are ever rear ended. Rear-ended accidents are not as serious in the first place. -- You almost NEVER hear of an accident where two cars are cruising at 40 mph (or faster) toward each other, both in reverse. Instead You have two cars where either one car is stopped and the other is moving, or both are going the same direction when the rear car bumps the front car -- this affects the magnitude of the forces involved greatly. Injuries tend to be worse in the typical accident than when you are rear-ended. http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx <-- More about rear facing including the exact question asked, about rear-end collisions. Here is a blog post that explains a little more (as well as showing the results of rear-facing in a horrific rear-end collision): http://myangelsaliandpeanut.tripod.com/id5.html Here is a blog post about an accident that happened last Friday (March 25, 2011) to a mutual friend of ours: http://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-do-what-i-do.html A side-swipe crash with a stationary barrier, followed by rolling a few times. The entire family survived, the almost-three year old in the rear-facing seat without a scratch. Edited April 1, 2011 by vonfirmath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Here is a blog post about an accident that happened last Friday (March 25, 2011) to a mutual friend of ours: http://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-do-what-i-do.html A side-swipe crash with a stationary barrier, followed by rolling a few times. The entire family survived, the almost-three year old in the rear-facing seat without a scratch. Everyone should read this blog and take a look at the crash pictures. If you question the need for car seats ala Freaknomics after that, something is wrong with you. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I rear-faced until my babies outgrew the weight limits on their seats (35lb). I also keep mine 5pt harnessed as long as possible. Shoot, I'd 5pt harness myself if I could ride in a Regent in the driver's seat.:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanceXToo Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 From CPS Safety dot com: What if I am hit from behind? Won't my child be safer facing forward? Frontal and side impacts are the most common type of crashes. They account for 96% of all crashes. They are also the most deadly type of crashes (especially side impacts) and rear-facing children have MUCH more protection in both types of crashes than forward-facing. In the 4% of rear impact crashes that a rear-facing child would be in, they have at least the same amount of protection that a FF child would have in a frontal impact, with the added benefit of less crash energy being transferred to them, and the fact that the rear impact is usually not as severe. The forces in a rear impact crash are much different from the forces in a frontal impact crash. In a frontal impact, the forces are much greater because the vehicles are usually traveling in opposite directions. Experts suggest that a frontal crash is the same as hitting a concrete barrier � the vehicle and all occupants come to a dead stop within less than 1 second. When you are struck in a rear impact, the vehicles involved are traveling in the same direction, and the vehicle that is hit in the back has room to move forward. The crash force on the occupants is much less than in a frontal impact. The movement of the impacted vehicle, in addition to the crush zone, absorbs a lot of the crash energy, so it is not transferred to the child. Additionally, the majority of rear impacts are at low speeds. In short, if your child is rear-facing, he has optimal protection in the types of crashes you are most likely to be in. If he is forward-facing, he may have optimal protection in a rear-end crash, but statistically, that is the least likely to happen and he is 60% more likely to be injured or killed in the types of crashes (frontal, side impact) you are most likely to be in. You can learn more about the physics of rear-facing at http://www.car-safety.org/rearface.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NanceXToo Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I rear-faced until my babies outgrew the weight limits on their seats (35lb). I also keep mine 5pt harnessed as long as possible. Shoot, I'd 5pt harness myself if I could ride in a Regent in the driver's seat.:lol: :iagree: My son is 5.5 years old and still in his Britax Boulevard 5 pt harness car seat. And I left him rear facing for quite some time. In fact, when he was 18 months old, that was when we bought the Britax Boulevard from a Babies R Us and we had taken it out to the car to make sure it would fit next to the booster seat my daughter was using at the time prior to purchasing it. The saleslady accompanied us out and was watching as my husband started trying to install the carseat- rearfacing. The lady started INSISTING that it had to go forward facing, that one year/20 lbs they go forward facing, that they should only rearface if their legs don't touch the back seat, that they could break their legs/hips in an accident... she was spewing so much misinformation that I started FUMING. I corrected everything she said, went inside and got a manager and got THEIR supervisor's mailing information, wrote a letter to everyone I could think of stating the facts and how I felt about what this lady was saying and how she was potentially putting babies in danger and so on and so forth lol... ...I ended up getting a letter back apologizing, saying they would be retraining their sales associates on this matter, AND they gave me a $50.00 gift card. Sweet, huh? :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 One more article about the March 25th crash -- more "car seat geeky" as they say: http://carseatblog.com/9574/they-survived/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 :iagree: My son is 5.5 years old and still in his Britax Boulevard 5 pt harness car seat. And I left him rear facing for quite some time. In fact, when he was 18 months old, that was when we bought the Britax Boulevard from a Babies R Us and we had taken it out to the car to make sure it would fit next to the booster seat my daughter was using at the time prior to purchasing it. The saleslady accompanied us out and was watching as my husband started trying to install the carseat- rearfacing. The lady started INSISTING that it had to go forward facing, that one year/20 lbs they go forward facing, that they should only rearface if their legs don't touch the back seat, that they could break their legs/hips in an accident... she was spewing so much misinformation that I started FUMING. I corrected everything she said, went inside and got a manager and got THEIR supervisor's mailing information, wrote a letter to everyone I could think of stating the facts and how I felt about what this lady was saying and how she was potentially putting babies in danger and so on and so forth lol... ...I ended up getting a letter back apologizing, saying they would be retraining their sales associates on this matter, AND they gave me a $50.00 gift card. Sweet, huh? :D Good for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennyD Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Shoot, I'd 5pt harness myself if I could ride in a Regent in the driver's seat.:lol: Don't race car drivers use 5-pt harnesses? NanceXToo, thanks for that clip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FO4UR Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I corrected everything she said, went inside and got a manager and got THEIR supervisor's mailing information, wrote a letter to everyone I could think of stating the facts and how I felt about what this lady was saying and how she was potentially putting babies in danger and so on and so forth lol... ...I ended up getting a letter back apologizing, saying they would be retraining their sales associates on this matter, AND they gave me a $50.00 gift card. Sweet, huh? :D Good for you!!!:hurray: Don't race car drivers use 5-pt harnesses? Yes. And, that's what I tell my 55lb 8yo as he straps into his regent.:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arghmatey Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I believe it is always safest to the limits (weight and height) of the seat and if a child is not one who screams to the point of barfing when rear-facing. If either of my children screamed until barfing and became carsick as a result of rear-facing, I would forward-face them after one year. As it stands, I just flipped my four year old to forward-facing about two months ago (she turns five this month), and my two year old will remain rear-facing until 45 pounds (the rear-facing limit on her seat). Car seat and traffic experts consider rear-facing best (I do not consider the AAP car seat experts) to the limits of the car seat. There are lower-priced seats that rear-face to 45 pounds. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ChildSafety/step2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Car seat and traffic experts consider rear-facing best (I do not consider the AAP car seat experts) to the limits of the car seat. There are lower-priced seats that rear-face to 45 pounds. http://www.nhtsa.gov/ChildSafety/step2 Even the AAP is coming around. Just last week they issued a new recommendation. http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/25435 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arghmatey Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Even the AAP is coming around. Just last week they issued a new recommendation. http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/25435 Yes, I read their recommendation when it was issued. Their language, however, states that you "should" flip to forward-facing at age two. This is probably for the purpose of not seeming radical and not to seem incredible to people who already think flipping is okay before one year, but it bothers me. I am, however, happy with the progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarango Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 The thought is, rear-facing is better because statistically you are least likely to be rear-ended than any other type of crash. Well, I have been involved in 3 accidents and in all 3 I was rear-ended....two of those times I had been sitting at a red light for more than ten seconds before it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnsinkableKristen Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Okay, I'm just really curious - for those of you who are putting your three and four year olds in rear facing seats, where are their legs going?? All of mine had long legs and by just over one they were so scrunched up they could barely move. I think it's great that they can stay safer, longer, I've just never seen a child that could sit that way much past one. Do my kids have weirdly long legs or have I been using the wrong car seat?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitten18 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Okay, I'm just really curious - for those of you who are putting your three and four year olds in rear facing seats, where are their legs going?? All of mine had long legs and by just over one they were so scrunched up they could barely move. I think it's great that they can stay safer, longer, I've just never seen a child that could sit that way much past one. Do my kids have weirdly long legs or have I been using the wrong car seat?? They bend or fold their legs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevilla Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 1. The rear-facing statistics quoted were a bit erroneous. RF accidents are common, but they are EXTREMELY uncommon causes of fatalities/serious injuries. That is where the criteria for safety are coming from. When you get rear-ended the likelihood of it being a fatal collision are significantly less than a head-on collision or a T-bone collision. 2. They bend or fold their legs. Some seats allow for more leg room than others - there is significant variation. In addition, your vehicle seats contribute to this. Some vehicles can recline the seat back which provides more legroom (think minivans and SUV's). Other vehicles have upright seatbacks that limit leg room. Children are at far less risk of leg injuries rear-facing than forward facing (even though many people cite 'no room for their legs - broken legs in a crash!') as a legitimate reason to turn forward facing. 3. Superfreakonomics does not, at all, address the issue of REAR-FACING carseat safety. They talk about forward facing toddlers in seat belts vs. carseats which is a completely different issue from extended rear-facing. In addition, they acknowledge that current car seatbelt design is not safest for children, and that redesigning the cars to have better integrated harnesses is something that should happen (I watched their TED talk a few years ago and am speaking based on that information). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Some seats allow for more leg room than others - there is significant variation. In addition, your vehicle seats contribute to this. Some vehicles can recline the seat back which provides more legroom (think minivans and SUV's). Other vehicles have upright seatbacks that limit leg room. I've got a minivan, but I cannot imagine there being room for kiddo's legs if she were backward-facing. When she hit 12 months those little legs were all scrunched up. At 3?! I *really* cannot imagine where her legs would be? Up near her throat? Maybe I just need a picture. Would anyone be willing to take a photo (no face shot needed) to show how an average-tall sized child's legs could fit rear-facing at 2 years old? I don't plan to move dd back to rear facing unless you all can convince me -- she's SO much happier front-facing. Seriously. She likes looking forward. MUCH less whining and complaining with this new view. (Of course I might feel differently about the increased safety of a rear-facing carseat if I'd ever been involved in an accident. Thank God I've never had one.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevilla Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here are photos of extended rearfacing kids: http://babyproducts.about.com/od/carseats/ig/Extended-Rear-Facing-Car-Seat/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaichiki Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Here are photos of extended rearfacing kids: http://babyproducts.about.com/od/carseats/ig/Extended-Rear-Facing-Car-Seat/ Some of those kids look comfy. Some look a bit extreme and I wonder if it is comfortable on long trips (which we do regularly). I guess it's one of those things you have to try with your own kid/carseat to see if it's reasonable. Maybe we can try them out at the store? I think BabiesRUs lets you try the seat in your car? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjzimmer1 Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Well since 2 year old is sleeping, I won't be taking any pictures tonight but basically think of her legs being in something of a yoga pose. Knees are bent to the side feet are kinda of in front. I didn't learn about extended rear facing until my last 2 kids. My now 4 year old rearfaced until 3. She was very happy there but since she had never forward faced she simply didn't know any better. I would have left her rear facing longer but the younger child had outgrown her infant carrier and I didn't have the funds to buy another large rearfacing carseat that would only be used at most another year. My current rear facing child is 2 1/2. I will leave her rear facing until she is 4 or outgrows her seat or I have the need for the seat for a future sibling. I have read so many people saying they would never leave their kids rear facing that long, that the legs would be uncomfortable etc. My view is this, first of all kids are far more flexible than adults. I can't even sit on the floor for 10 minutes without something starting to hurt and yet my children will happily play sitting there on the butts or with legs folded under them ( I last less than 5 in this position) for an hour or two. So I think usually when people worry about the uncomfortableness they are thinking because they (the adult) would be uncomfortable in that position that therefore the child will also be uncomfortable in that position. 2nd, if a kid has always rear faced than they don't really know anything else. Now if I once put my kid forward facing and then tried to go back to rear facing then I would expect complaining but if that's the way it's always done then most kids won't even comment on it. When I first told the pediatrician I was keeping them rear facing, she said good for you. She knew 1 year wasn't near long enough but since that's what AAP recommended she was always fighting a losing battle trying to convince parents otherwise. The current 2 year recommendation is certainly a step in the right direct but I personally think it needs to be at LEAST 3 before they might be getting close to actually having safe recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I heard from several places that you're supposed to turn them forward-facing once the top of their head rises above the back of the carseat, which is why we turned dd at about two and a half. Anyone know if this is true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bairnmama Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Keeping them rearfacing in those bigger carseats may be safer, but it's just about impossible for those of us driving older, smaller cars. I drive a 1995 Camry that has absolutely NO tether points or LATCH anchor points. From what I've read, virtually all the larger seats require the top tether when the kids get above a certain weight. Also, I tried to put my Britax Marathon rearfacing for my then 1 yr old and it just.would.not fit, even with the passenger seat all the way forward and the back of the front seat leaned forward a bit. I had to turn him forward once he outgrew his infant carrier since I already had the Britax from his sister and couldn't afford another seat that was rated for rear-facing at his weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellyndria Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I heard from several places that you're supposed to turn them forward-facing once the top of their head rises above the back of the carseat, which is why we turned dd at about two and a half. Anyone know if this is true? I believe there's supposed to be at least an inch between the top of their head and the top of the back of the carseat when rearfacing. There are diagrams that show the proper way to measure this. However, the seats that have a higher rearfacing weight limit also tend to have a bit taller shell as well, which, yes, is another factor in being able to keep them rearfacing longer. So that's something to keep in mind when purchasing a car seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weddell Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 When the AAP made their annoucement about recommending kids rear face until 2, I found out that in Sweden it is recommended that kids rear face until 4. Apparently that is the norm there and they have designed seats that can rear face until kids are 55lbs. They are also designed to fit in smaller cars than U.S. seats and to give maximum leg room for older kids. http://www.carseat.se/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellydon Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Okay, I'm just really curious - for those of you who are putting your three and four year olds in rear facing seats, where are their legs going?? All of mine had long legs and by just over one they were so scrunched up they could barely move. I think it's great that they can stay safer, longer, I've just never seen a child that could sit that way much past one. Do my kids have weirdly long legs or have I been using the wrong car seat?? Here is a large album of rear facing kids, many 3 or 4 years old. They fit fine sitting criss cross. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty in Pink Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 The Costco Scenera isn't the fanciest car seat around, but it does rear face to a height of 43" and a weight of 35 lbs. It runs about fifty bucks. http://www.consumersearch.com/car-seats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 To the OP, does your dh have anything to back up his argument or is it just what he thinks? I suggest you have him look up the recommendations and look at photos of accidents. I rear-faced until my babies outgrew the weight limits on their seats (35lb). I also keep mine 5pt harnessed as long as possible. Shoot, I'd 5pt harness myself if I could ride in a Regent in the driver's seat.:lol: LOL! Indy just came out of his Regent last year (at age 7) and that thing IS comfy. After we took it out, we went on a few long trips and he requested we put it back in so he could be "super comfy" on the drive. I LOVE this car seat. Okay, I'm just really curious - for those of you who are putting your three and four year olds in rear facing seats, where are their legs going?? All of mine had long legs and by just over one they were so scrunched up they could barely move. I think it's great that they can stay safer, longer, I've just never seen a child that could sit that way much past one. Do my kids have weirdly long legs or have I been using the wrong car seat?? Indy has long legs too, but was rf until a little over 3 in a Britax Marathon. He had no problems folding his legs. Kids are super flexible and while it may look uncomfortable to us, it's not to them. When we flipped Indy around, he complained that there was nothing to prop his legs up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Okay, I'm just really curious - for those of you who are putting your three and four year olds in rear facing seats, where are their legs going?? All of mine had long legs and by just over one they were so scrunched up they could barely move. I think it's great that they can stay safer, longer, I've just never seen a child that could sit that way much past one. Do my kids have weirdly long legs or have I been using the wrong car seat?? My kids have short torsos and long legs, and we rear-faced until past their third birthdays (when they hit the shoulder-height limit of the seats). They just crisscross them. My kids complained for ages when we turned forward facing that they were SOOOO uncomfortable with their legs dangling! Think about it - which way is more comfy? Crisscross, or dangling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Well, I have been involved in 3 accidents and in all 3 I was rear-ended....two of those times I had been sitting at a red light for more than ten seconds before it happened. But the force involved in that kind of accident is much less than if you had been hit in the front. You were probably propelled forward when hit from the back. If you had been hit in the front, you probably would have been traveling forward, so not only would the forward movement be stopped, but you would be pushed backward. How much more force is involved when the hit stops your movement or pushes you in the opposite direction, vs. just continuing the way you were going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Children are at far less risk of leg injuries rear-facing than forward facing (even though many people cite 'no room for their legs - broken legs in a crash!') as a legitimate reason to turn forward facing. I have heard that argument so many times as well. There is NO evidence, not even ONE recorded incident of broken legs from a rear-facing carseat in a wreck. Even if there was, the purpose of rear-facing is to protect the spinal cord. I'd take broken legs over a broken neck/spinal cord injury ANY day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I heard from several places that you're supposed to turn them forward-facing once the top of their head rises above the back of the carseat, which is why we turned dd at about two and a half. Anyone know if this is true? I always thought it was top of the ears. Check on carseat.org. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Indy has long legs too, but was rf until a little over 3 in a Britax Marathon. He had no problems folding his legs. Kids are super flexible and while it may look uncomfortable to us, it's not to them. When we flipped Indy around, he complained that there was nothing to prop his legs up. I ride in the front passenger seat on long trips, and find myself alternately with feet up on the dash, crisscross, etc. to get comfortable. All the positions that a kid would be in RF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeganW Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 I don't consider myself a radical about very many things, but carseats are one of the things that gets me going! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 (edited) I was reading in the other thread that rear facing is safer due to neck muscles still developing in younger children. As I pondered this I was wondering if rear facing is safest for all types of car accients. My dh argues that front facing is better if we are ever rear ended. No. I rolled a car when my oldest was 10mos and 30lbs. It was a hatch back and I had just turned his carseat forward facing that morning. Thank goodness I did or he would have gotten a glass shower full on in the face! Facing forward, it just skimmed over the top of his car seat and left a few, barely there scratches on the top of his head. The other important thing, especially as he was the only other person in the car, is that his seat was in the MIDDLE of the back...not near either door. When the car rolled, the roof caved on both sides of him...where his seat was was the safest spot. I also can't keep older tots rear facing, because it hurts their legs. Edited April 2, 2011 by mommaduck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevilla Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 Keeping them rearfacing in those bigger carseats may be safer, but it's just about impossible for those of us driving older, smaller cars. I drive a 1995 Camry that has absolutely NO tether points or LATCH anchor points. From what I've read, virtually all the larger seats require the top tether when the kids get above a certain weight. Also, I tried to put my Britax Marathon rearfacing for my then 1 yr old and it just.would.not fit, even with the passenger seat all the way forward and the back of the front seat leaned forward a bit. I had to turn him forward once he outgrew his infant carrier since I already had the Britax from his sister and couldn't afford another seat that was rated for rear-facing at his weight. 1. Seatbelt installs are fine - you don't need LATCH to extended rearface. We had both kids extended rearfacing in a car from the 90's without anchors. We got tethers retrofitted by the dealer (IIRC it was $65 to get three top tethers installed - and those are used to secure the top of the carseat forward-facing to protect the head/neck from flying forward as much in a crash). 2. If your child is forward-facing in a convertible carseat, I would strongly recommend getting top tethers installed in your car - a Toyota can have that done and it's a few hours at the dealer and not much $. FWIW, in Canada tethers are *required* wich all FF carseats - it's not optional - because of the increased head/neck protection. 3. Seats are different now - even five years ago, the selection of extended rear-facing seats was slim (basically limited to Britax and the Radian - both $$ seats). That has all radically changed as Graco, Evenflo, and Dorel have come out with good rear-facing seats that will fit children until they are preschool aged and aren't significantly more expensive. I heard from several places that you're supposed to turn them forward-facing once the top of their head rises above the back of the carseat, which is why we turned dd at about two and a half. Anyone know if this is true? A child has outgrown aseat rf'img whenthey meet ONE of the following criteria: 1. RF'ing weight limit (usually 35 lbs, but some seats are higher or lower) 2. Headiswithin 1": of thetop of the shell (noty fabric - actual shell) Rf'ing, the straps should come out at or below the shoulders. Different seats are outgrown atdifferent times due to different shell heights and weight limits. Our older Britax Roundabout was out grown reasr-facing before age 2. A Cosco Scenara around age 3. A Radian or TruFit at age 4. (all ages are approximations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmarango Posted April 2, 2011 Author Share Posted April 2, 2011 My dh is an engineer and was just thinking about the physics of the situation. I wonder if statistically women with young children are more likely to be involved in side swipe and head on collisions due to distractions from their dc. Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonfirmath Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 My dh is an engineer and was just thinking about the physics of the situation. I wonder if statistically women with young children are more likely to be involved in side swipe and head on collisions due to distractions from their dc. Just curious. Statistically, insurance companies (the ones with the most to lose) rate single young men as the riskiest drivers and thus the highest insurance premiums. Parents are among the lowest. Precious cargo seems to lead to less risky behavior overall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevilla Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 Statistically, insurance companies (the ones with the most to lose) rate single young men as the riskiest drivers and thus the highest insurance premiums. Parents are among the lowest. Precious cargo seems to lead to less risky behavior overall. In addition, minivans have 1/3 the rate of serious injuries in a crash as sedans, and SUV's also have a lower rate of injury compared to sedans (can't remember the exact percentage). Moms are more likely to drive those types of vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommyof4ks Posted April 3, 2011 Share Posted April 3, 2011 I was reading in the other thread that rear facing is safer due to neck muscles still developing in younger children. As I pondered this I was wondering if rear facing is safest for all types of car accients. My dh argues that front facing is better if we are ever rear ended. Oddly enough both wrecks that I have been involved in and the 3 that my mom has been involved in were all rearend collisions, and we have wondered about this also. My dd was 22 months when I was rear ended (the one wreck I was involved in as a parent), and she was FF in a 5pt harness in the center of the back seat of my little Saturn. The lady hit us going 55 MPH while we were stopped waiting for a guy to turn (she was too busy on her cell phone :glare:). DD was fine not even a scratch or a bruise, and the cop even mentioned that it was good DD was FF or the windshield may have broken on her and she could have inhaled glass. I had no idea. I also wonder if her spine was safer that way too in that particular wreck, but yeah if had been in a high speed front end collision no question she would have been safer RF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.