Extended rear facing??

[Carrie12345]

My youngest two, yes. I followed standard recommendations with the first 3.

 

I switched #4 just before age 2 because I was having back problems that made it difficult to get him in. I'll keep #5 rear facing as long as I can handle it.

 

I do have to share that the first time I turned #4, he cried hysterically. We live on a mountain, so his first windshield view must have made it look/feel like a roller coaster!

[astrid]

My oldest was very content rear facing, but my youngest was a terror. Her screaming was so terrible we avoided everything we could until she was just over a year, then we turned her around. She was a completely different passenger when forward facing.

 

This was Molly, too. She was such a calm, happy baby, except when we approached the car. She'd cry from the minute I put her in the seat until I took her out. And vomit 5 minutes into the trip, even if it was to the grocery store. She never spit up at home, only in the car. When it got so she'd freak when she heard the car keys jangle, I'd had enough. DUH- I thought. She can't ride backwards, it makes her carsick! Most ADULTS can't ride backwards!

 

Life was good after that...

 

astrid

[Seeking Squirrels]

 

I'd love to have her back in a harness, because she is so uncomfortable in the booster and complains all the time about it, plus she's a car-sleeper, which ends up with her leaning all over the place. :glare: If only I could win the lottery tomorrow to buy a new seat.... (Oh, and a new vehicle... :lol:)

 

Do you still have the frontier? Depending on your vehicle and year you may be able to have a tether anchor retrofitted. I can check for you if you want, just tell me the make, model, and year.

[Cera]

Yes. My kids were 20 months (when the screaming became more dangerous than being forward facing) and 24 months when they turned forward facing. At 6 my younger is still harnessed. My 8 year old just got a hugh back booster at 7 3/4 because she outgrew the harness height on her seat finally (she was so excited).

 

The new recommendation is rear facing until 2.

 

 

http://www.kyledavidmiller.org/car-seat-safety-rear-facing-is-safest.html

[Runningmom80]

My twins are 26 months, still RF. I have looked at the info, and from what I've seen, it's much safer. My DD hates her car seat, always has, but I'm the boss. :) I'd rather have a screaming kid than a dead one.

[tabrizia]

DS1 was rear-facing until 2 1/2 when we bought him a Regent, if I had to do it again I would have bought the Radians then and kept him rear-facing. He was 31 pounds by then and I didn't feel safe leaving him in the 33 pound rear-facing Marathon anymore though. He is also still harnessed except at my parents where he is in a high back booster.

 

DD is still rear-facing at 3 1/2. She does occasionally ride forward facing in other cars, but in the main one she is rear-facing. I have told her she can turn when she is 4. She would not have been able to legally turn before she was 2 anyways, since she wasn't 20 pounds until her 2nd birthday, DD is my tiny one. She won't be 30 pounds by 4, but I feel that she should still be safe enough because of her age. She wants to go forward facing because her big brother is. If he wasn't forward facing I would probably keep her rear-facing till 5ish.

 

DS2 is only 18 months so he is obviously still rear-facing as well. I will turn him when he is 4 or when he outgrows his seat rear-facing. Since I have 40 pound rear-facing seats he is likely to make it to pretty close to 4.

[Momof3littles]

All 3 of my kids have been extended RFers. 8.5 yrs ago with my DS1 not as many people were aware of it, and we definitely got more looks. My ILs have made comments through the years with all 3 kids about "oh, but their legs are touching the back of the seat! They might break a leg like that." No matter how many times we explain, they just refuse to listen. DS2 is still ERF at almost 30 months. He has no complaints :001_smile:

 

When you look at children's vertebrae, I think it makes more sense. The bones of their spine aren't fully fused. Their heads are very large in proportion to their body and that creates a lot of force. The "internal decapitation" aspect of it is something we have explained to others, but people are still worried about their feet touching the back of the seat :glare::glare:

Around halfway down on this link they have images of the bones of the spine in a 1 yo vs. a 6 yo. http://www.beseatsmart.org/stage1/rear-facing-seat.php

[Mommy_of_4]

DS was RF until 3yrs 8 months. ODD and YDD are still RF at 3yrs and 11 months and 15 months. There is no reason to turn them forward when RF is so much safer. All of my kids will also be harnessed until they no longer fit. We had originally turned DS forward at 12 months but then I saw some studies and "Joels Journey" and turned him right back around to RF.

[StaceyinLA]

Dd is so torn. Dgs is 13 months, but still only at 20 lbs, so she isn't wanting to FF him any time soon. However, he has always been HORRIBLE in the car. She has never sat in the front seat when he was in the car (unless he's asleep), and will not drive alone with him. She has had to jerk him out of the seat fast (thankfully, they were in a parking lot), because he cried until he gagged himself and was choking.

 

We are about to take a trip to WDW, and we bought him a new convertible seat and have it secured with him RF, but he is just the most miserable child I have ever seen in a car. It's awful. It's gonna be a long 12 hours to Disney!

 

She is really concerned about life when dgd arrives, with dgs still a hysterical, screaming mess every time they're in the car.

[AdventureMoms]

Dd is so torn. Dgs is 13 months, but still only at 20 lbs, so she isn't wanting to FF him any time soon. However, he has always been HORRIBLE in the car. She has never sat in the front seat when he was in the car (unless he's asleep), and will not drive alone with him. She has had to jerk him out of the seat fast (thankfully, they were in a parking lot), because he cried until he gagged himself and was choking.

 

We are about to take a trip to WDW, and we bought him a new convertible seat and have it secured with him RF, but he is just the most miserable child I have ever seen in a car. It's awful. It's gonna be a long 12 hours to Disney!

 

She is really concerned about life when dgd arrives, with dgs still a hysterical, screaming mess every time they're in the car.

 

Most kids go through this phase at some point it seems. DD was a carseat hater from birth to about 14 months. Then she (FINALLLY) figured out how to amuse herself. She cried so much when I made her turn FF at 3.5yo (she was getting too heavy to RF in her seat) that I seriously considered a bigger RF seat for her.

[Joker]

This was Molly, too. She was such a calm, happy baby, except when we approached the car. She'd cry from the minute I put her in the seat until I took her out. And vomit 5 minutes into the trip, even if it was to the grocery store. She never spit up at home, only in the car. When it got so she'd freak when she heard the car keys jangle, I'd had enough. DUH- I thought. She can't ride backwards, it makes her carsick! Most ADULTS can't ride backwards!

 

Life was good after that...

 

astrid

 

Maybe it has something to do with the name? Mine who hated riding backwards is a Molly, too. :D

[Granny_Weatherwax]

Wow and wow...now I have something else to worry about.

 

My DD was rear-facing until she was three. She was tiny, though, and never hit the weight requirement for FF. Technically, she should have been in a booster seat at 16 when she began driving. She barely hit 80 pounds back then. The DMV questioned the validity of her birth certificate because she looks so young and is so petite.

 

I think we turned DS by 1.5. He was in a booster until 4th or 5th grade.

 

With DD's baby - this is where it's going to become complicated, since we have seven vehicles and a second family to contend with. This is a conversation I am not looking forward to participating in. For our family alone - The baby can ride RF in DH's truck for a long while, plenty of room in there. In DD's car, the main car for the baby, the baby will probably remain RFing for as long as the current car seat lasts, until 35 pounds. At that time we will have to look for a new car seat. My car is problematic already and I want to turn the baby now. I drive a VW Beetle convertible and there is no room for more than the driver and the RFing car seat. The RFing car seat cannot go behind my seat due to lack of leg room for me so it is relegated to the rear right side passenger seat which means the front passenger seat has to be moved all the way forward or it hits the car seat. No adult can fit in the front passenger seat with the RFing car seat installed, which means when I have the baby DD and I either switch cars (which she loves by the way) or DS and I stay home with the baby. Installing or removing the car seat in the VW is a feat and requires a bit of gymnastics. Let me just say VW Beetle convertibles are neither family nor car seat friendly.

 

The VW makes me happy IYKNWIM; DD's car, not so much, but I have been driving it for the past few months. The issue would be solved by turning the car seat around or buying a new car. :(

 

The other family - we know the baby travels in at least four of their vehicles - baby daddy, his GF :( , his mother and his sister. We have no idea how they place the baby. I don't even know how to bring up this topic to DD. It is definitely something she will have to discuss with baby daddy.

[LinRTX]

I turn mine as soon as I can, mainly because they scream the entire time they are facing rear and my nerves cannot handle it any longer than necessary.

 

Linda

[Mom-ninja.]

The "internal decapitation" aspect of it is something we have explained to others, but people are still worried about their feet touching the back of the seat :glare::glare:

 

A friend of mine is a Fireman. He says he is so happy when he sees kids RFing. His response to the feet on the back of the seat is, "Better a broken leg than a broken neck."

 

 

 

Dd is so torn. Dgs is 13 months, but still only at 20 lbs, so she isn't wanting to FF him any time soon. However, he has always been HORRIBLE in the car. She has never sat in the front seat when he was in the car (unless he's asleep), and will not drive alone with him. She has had to jerk him out of the seat fast (thankfully, they were in a parking lot), because he cried until he gagged himself and was choking.

 

We are about to take a trip to WDW, and we bought him a new convertible seat and have it secured with him RF, but he is just the most miserable child I have ever seen in a car. It's awful. It's gonna be a long 12 hours to Disney!

 

She is really concerned about life when dgd arrives, with dgs still a hysterical, screaming mess every time they're in the car.

 

Soft toys, soft books and board books, and gulp, a portable DVD player. Strap a portable dvd player where he can see it and get lots of shows and movies for little ones like Leap Frog. Then consider it car schooling! ;)

 

 

 

I see I'm not the only one to have kids RF to age 4. :) However, I didn't see anyone else mention their 11 yr old still in a 5 pt. My kids must be amazingly small. Well, on that note so I'm I. I technically fit into my ds's Regent.

[SKL]

Soft toys, soft books and board books, and gulp, a portable DVD player. Strap a portable dvd player where he can see it and get lots of shows and movies for little ones like Leap Frog. Then consider it car schooling! ;)

 

Just remember that if you're ever in an accident bad enough for RF to make a difference, anything hard or heavy can become a projectile and do a lot of damage. (Theoretically, that includes your cell phone and coffee mug, but most certainly a DVD player that isn't extremely well-secured.) Since we're basing life decisions on the miniscule possibility of a massive front-end accident, might as well go all out.

[dirty ethel rackham]

Most kids go through this phase at some point it seems. DD was a carseat hater from birth to about 14 months. Then she (FINALLLY) figured out how to amuse herself. She cried so much when I made her turn FF at 3.5yo (she was getting too heavy to RF in her seat) that I seriously considered a bigger RF seat for her.

 

I don't think its about amusing oneself. Children don't scream bloody murder until they are vomiting just because the "can't amuse themselves." For some children, rear-facing is so uncomfortable that they can't stand it. Dd was a calm, pleasant baby except in the car where she cried inconsolably and would vomit (and she almost never spit up.) I didn't go more than 10 minutes away from home unless I could be in the back seat and car-nurse her (again, not a terribly safe practice) because the screaming would make me a nervous wreck and I couldn't drive. She had older siblings to entertain her and still she would scream. She was this way with rear-facing strollers as well. I think she had motion sickness. We tolerated it for a year because that was the recommendation back then (and I am all about safety - if I could bubble-wrap my kids, I would.) When we switched to forward facing, she was a different baby - all smiles.

 

I have to wonder along with a PP about where their legs go. By the time my kids were a year old, their knees were near their ears. They outgrew infant (bucket) seats by 4 months old and we had to do rear-facing convertible seats. My kids were tall, but not off the charts. Granted, I haven't shopped for infant gear in a long, long time, so I don't know what is out there, but things don't look that different.

[Joker]

 

I see I'm not the only one to have kids RF to age 4. :) However, I didn't see anyone else mention their 11 yr old still in a 5 pt. My kids must be amazingly small. Well, on that note so I'm I. I technically fit into my ds's Regent.

 

Mine were out of boosters at eight. My 13 yr old is taller than me, and my 10 yr old is as tall as me. I'm 5'4". :tongue_smilie:

[Dory]

I don't think its about amusing oneself. Children don't scream bloody murder until they are vomiting just because the "can't amuse themselves." For some children, rear-facing is so uncomfortable that they can't stand it. Dd was a calm, pleasant baby except in the car where she cried inconsolably and would vomit (and she almost never spit up.) I didn't go more than 10 minutes away from home unless I could be in the back seat and car-nurse her (again, not a terribly safe practice) because the screaming would make me a nervous wreck and I couldn't drive. She had older siblings to entertain her and still she would scream. She was this way with rear-facing strollers as well. I think she had motion sickness. We tolerated it for a year because that was the recommendation back then (and I am all about safety - if I could bubble-wrap my kids, I would.) When we switched to forward facing, she was a different baby - all smiles.

 

I have to wonder along with a PP about where their legs go. By the time my kids were a year old, their knees were near their ears. They outgrew infant (bucket) seats by 4 months old and we had to do rear-facing convertible seats. My kids were tall, but not off the charts. Granted, I haven't shopped for infant gear in a long, long time, so I don't know what is out there, but things don't look that different.

 

This was my boys too. It hit the point for us where the miniscule chance of a head on collision wasn't worth torturing the kids. Both my boys still have issues with being car sick now. As someone who has a damage esophagus from throwing up too much, I don't think I'd want to purposely do that to my kids.

[AdventureMoms]

I don't think its about amusing oneself. Children don't scream bloody murder until they are vomiting just because the "can't amuse themselves." For some children, rear-facing is so uncomfortable that they can't stand it. Dd was a calm, pleasant baby except in the car where she cried inconsolably and would vomit (and she almost never spit up.) I didn't go more than 10 minutes away from home unless I could be in the back seat and car-nurse her (again, not a terribly safe practice) because the screaming would make me a nervous wreck and I couldn't drive. She had older siblings to entertain her and still she would scream. She was this way with rear-facing strollers as well. I think she had motion sickness. We tolerated it for a year because that was the recommendation back then (and I am all about safety - if I could bubble-wrap my kids, I would.) When we switched to forward facing, she was a different baby - all smiles.

 

Mine did. Still does sometimes. She's rather over-dramatic, and has been since infancy. Just now she had a sobbing fit over using the toilet. She's been potty trained for well over 2 years.

 

I have to wonder along with a PP about where their legs go. By the time my kids were a year old, their knees were near their ears. They outgrew infant (bucket) seats by 4 months old and we had to do rear-facing convertible seats. My kids were tall, but not off the charts. Granted, I haven't shopped for infant gear in a long, long time, so I don't know what is out there, but things don't look that different.

 

http://andyouthinkwehavetimetoblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-rear-facing-3-year-old-looks-like.html

 

It's an old blog post on my entirely neglected blog, but here is what DD looked like at 3yo. She RF'ed for another 6 months or so after this. She was tall (70th percentile or so). Not a chart-topper like the twins, but way taller than even the tallest 1yos.

[Mommy_of_4]

Just remember that if you're ever in an accident bad enough for RF to make a difference, anything hard or heavy can become a projectile and do a lot of damage. (Theoretically, that includes your cell phone and coffee mug, but most certainly a DVD player that isn't extremely well-secured.) Since we're basing life decisions on the miniscule possibility of a massive front-end accident, might as well go all out.

 

Rearfacing is not quite as effective in a rear end crash but severe frontal and off set frontal crashes are far more frequent and far more severe than severe rear end crashes. Frontal and off set frontal crashes account for 72% of severe crashes. Side impacts account for 24% and rear and off set rear crashes account for 4%. The odds of being in a severe car crash is 30%. How is that miniscule when 72% of those crashes are frontal?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Lynn213220

[Momof3littles]

 

I have to wonder along with a PP about where their legs go. By the time my kids were a year old, their knees were near their ears. They outgrew infant (bucket) seats by 4 months old and we had to do rear-facing convertible seats. My kids were tall, but not off the charts. Granted, I haven't shopped for infant gear in a long, long time, so I don't know what is out there, but things don't look that different.

They can sit cross legged, etc. We had more complaints from the kids when they were turned FF because dangling legs can be uncomfortable, and some kids find their legs fall asleep when danging unsupported.

 

In Sweden, my understanding is that they regularly do very extended RF to age 4+. The kids just sit cross legged, as far as I know.

[xixstar]

I am very comfortable with our choice to do Extended Rear Facing. dd2 was RF until age 3 and dd3 will probably be RF until 4 or older since we finally bought a car seat with high RF limits. When dd3 isn't in the car, dd2 (age 4) sits in the RF car seat by choice.

 

My girls cried like crazy when they were babies in their carseats but that ended before we hit the 1 year mark. So I haven't had to deal with a child that struggles with rear facing. I like to say that I would still do extended RF but then again, having not been in that situation, I can't really say.

[Momof3littles]

I understand how hard it is to have a LO that cries a lot in the car. DS1 was awful until he was over a year old, DD was absolutely horrible about riding in the car in early infancy in particular, but she improved by maybe 6-8 months. DS2 wasn't great about it either but was the best of the 3 in the car. It is really stressful when they hate the car :(

[dirty ethel rackham]

Mine did. Still does sometimes. She's rather over-dramatic, and has been since infancy. Just now she had a sobbing fit over using the toilet. She's been potty trained for well over 2 years.

 

 

Okay, so maybe yours was about her normal, dramatic personality. But I was trying to counter your claim that babies who cry RF simply haven't learned to amuse themselves. I knew that my child was not simply crying out of boredom but out of serious discomfort. She had plenty to amuse her - her favorite people - her brothers.

 

http://andyouthinkwehavetimetoblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-rear-facing-3-year-old-looks-like.html

 

She RF'ed for another 6 months or so after this. She was tall (70th percentile or so). Not a chart-topper like the twins, but way taller than even the tallest 1yos.

Thanks for the picture. This is what my kids looked like about about 13 months - knees into their ears - and I had the biggest car seats available at the time.

[Mandy in TN]

Mine were out of boosters at eight. My 13 yr old is taller than me, and my 10 yr old is as tall as me. I'm 5'4". :tongue_smilie:

Yeah, my oldest was 25lbs and longer than an infant seat by the time he was 6 months old. He is now 21yo. 21 years ago that was when I turned him. There were no fancy rf carseats for huge babies 21 years ago. And some kiddos are not flexible. This one sure wasn't. He never sat cross legged and never slept in weird positions. He never even really crawled.

 

My second was a colic baby who would projectile vomit. He choked many times. To make matters worse he was also one of those who from birth started screaming the minute you closed the car door. I was a nervous wreck the whole time he was rf. He is now 18yo and I don't remember when I turned him, but I am sure that I did it as soon as it was legal. I am also certain that the anxiety and distraction caused by having him scream and listening for him to choke was right up there with texting and driving.

 

Of course, that long ago the big boys were both out of carseats when they turned 5yo. :D

 

My youngest is 9yo and he was so glad to get rid of that thing behind his back. He complained about how much it hurt every time he was in the car.

 

My best friend from childhood is 4'10" and 85lbs fully clothed. Her dh is over 6' tall and she has 3 giant children. Can you imagine putting a child in a car seat who is larger than you? :lol: It paints a funny picture.

 

Mandy

[nertsmommy]

I wanted to add that DD(4) would cry a lot in her car seat when she rear faced. She started getting car sick when we turned her around. I wonder if her stomach was upset when she was rear facing and that was why she was crying. She still gets car sick if we don't give her half a tablet of Dramamine before driving anywhere over a 45 min distance. Youngest DD(2) also has to have half a Dramamine for anything over 1 hr distance. She will start crying a lot if we forget to give it to her.

[AdventureMoms]

Okay, so maybe yours was about her normal, dramatic personality. But I was trying to counter your claim that babies who cry RF simply haven't learned to amuse themselves. I knew that my child was not simply crying out of boredom but out of serious discomfort. She had plenty to amuse her - her favorite people - her brothers.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that your kid was just unable to amuse herself. :) That's my kid's problem, I'm sure other kids have different issues with RF.

 

Thanks for the picture. This is what my kids looked like about about 13 months - knees into their ears - and I had the biggest car seats available at the time.

This I don't get though. Her knees are nowhere near her ears. They still aren't more than a year later if she sits in her brothers seats (same seats). She's 42" now.

 

FWIW my twins are now about the same size she is in that picture. They are 35lbs, 37" tall, 22months old, and they look about like that. If the limits of the seat were higher they'd fit another couple of years, at least! I do know that some seats, especially older ones, have less legroom (the Britax and Recaro convertibles are famous for their lack of legroom RF), and I can see where knees-to-the-ears would be uncomfortable, but if they looked like DD does in that pic they still had tons of room!

Edited September 6, 2012 by AdventureMoms

[Momof3littles]

I

FWIW my twins are now about the same size she is in that picture. They are 35lbs, 37" tall, 22months old, and they look about like that. If the limits of the seat were higher they'd fit another couple of years, at least! I do know that some seats, especially older ones, have less legroom (the Britax and Recaro convertibles are famous for their lack of legroom RF), and I can see where knees-to-the-ears would be uncomfortable, but if they looked like DD does in that pic they still had tons of room!

 

My 2.5 yo's legs are more bent than the child in the photo, and he has zero complaints. He sits with them bent, just chilling. Oh, and he's in a Britax convertible we've had for a few years (not expired of course!). No problem at all. But that doesn't stop FIL/MIL/SIL/BIL from continuing to comment even though we've gone through the explanation for years. BIL/SIL turned my nephew early, he rides in the carseat with a coat (that is bulkier, not a fleece or thinner jacket), they don't know how to do a good install, and yet, they are worried about my kids ERF and having legs that touch the seat :confused: :001_huh:

[AdventureMoms]

My 2.5 yo's legs are more bent than the child in the photo, and he has zero complaints. He sits with them bent, just chilling. Oh, and he's in a Britax convertible we've had for a few years (not expired of course!). No problem at all. But that doesn't stop FIL/MIL/SIL/BIL from continuing to comment even though we've gone through the explanation for years. BIL/SIL turned my nephew early, he rides in the carseat with a coat (that is bulkier, not a fleece or thinner jacket), they don't know how to do a good install, and yet, they are worried about my kids ERF and having legs that touch the seat :confused: :001_huh:

 

Yup. I promise, this child (drama queen, remember?) would have let me know if her legs got uncomfortable. She's very verbal and was 3.5 when she turned, she could tell me exactly how she felt about it. Instead she sobbed and cried when we turned her because she couldn't see out the window very well (she was used to the "panoramic view" of the rear windshield instead of having a front seat in her way) and because her bottom hurt (lack of leg support).

[SKL]

I wanted to add that DD(4) would cry a lot in her car seat when she rear faced. She started getting car sick when we turned her around. I wonder if her stomach was upset when she was rear facing and that was why she was crying. She still gets car sick if we don't give her half a tablet of Dramamine before driving anywhere over a 45 min distance. Youngest DD(2) also has to have half a Dramamine for anything over 1 hr distance. She will start crying a lot if we forget to give it to her.

 

I'd be more concerned about giving my kid meds, but to each her own. I have no room to talk since my kids were always great in the car, RF or otherwise. Well, except when we were stopped at red lights and they didn't understand why we weren't going.

 

My kids had the smallest car seats I could find, but while RF, they still made it very hard to sit in the front passenger seat. I dealt with it until after their 2nd winter (driving on icy freeways with deep ditches on both sides made me nervous). Then I turned them so they could see what was going on in the world, and so someone over 5' tall could sit comfortably in the passenger seat.

 

The guidelines always perplex me. I have two kids, 3 months apart in age. The eldest is petite and very strong / physically mature. She will be 6 and still wears size 2-3 shorts very comfortably. The youngest is taller, significantly heavier, and physically wimpier. The guidelines would have the soft, wimpy, young one graduate into "less safe" seats first, based only on size. Meanwhile my eldest may be the most kick-ass kid (physically) in her primary school, and still "recommended" to be RF in a baby seat per some people. I would prefer more rational criteria. If my eldest isn't safe in a booster, then no 6yo is.

[VeganCupcake]

This is my 3 y 10 m DD in July in her Radian. I turned the seat that day because she'd been asking and I was feeling like it was ok for her to ride FFing. She is turning 4 next week, is about 40 inches tall, and 29 lbs (she is very thin!).

 

You can see baby brother in a Britax Marathon Classic in the background; he is 17 months old. He doesn't like the carseat, but he also doesn't like the stroller, the high chair, or anything else he has to be buckled into.

 

 

Dd is so torn. Dgs is 13 months, but still only at 20 lbs, so she isn't wanting to FF him any time soon. However, he has always been HORRIBLE in the car. She has never sat in the front seat when he was in the car (unless he's asleep), and will not drive alone with him. She has had to jerk him out of the seat fast (thankfully, they were in a parking lot), because he cried until he gagged himself and was choking.

 

We are about to take a trip to WDW, and we bought him a new convertible seat and have it secured with him RF, but he is just the most miserable child I have ever seen in a car. It's awful. It's gonna be a long 12 hours to Disney!

 

She is really concerned about life when dgd arrives, with dgs still a hysterical, screaming mess every time they're in the car.

 

Have you driven him around in the new convertible seat to see how he likes it? Is it possible that infant seat was too reclined for his taste as a young toddler, he couldn't see out the window, wasn't very comfortable, etc.?

[mom2jjka]

About the legs....kids are incredibly flexible, and it is perfectly acceptable for their legs to be bent - or to touch the back of the seat. My DD rode RFing until 4 and she either sat pretzel-legged or sometimes she stretched them out.

She never complained about it being uncomfortable. In fact she complained more about her legs dangling when we turned her around. At almost 8, she still misses RFing, and asks when we can 'turn her backwards' again.

 

[AdventureMoms]

I'd be more concerned about giving my kid meds, but to each her own. I have no room to talk since my kids were always great in the car, RF or otherwise. Well, except when we were stopped at red lights and they didn't understand why we weren't going.

 

My kids had the smallest car seats I could find, but while RF, they still made it very hard to sit in the front passenger seat. I dealt with it until after their 2nd winter (driving on icy freeways with deep ditches on both sides made me nervous). Then I turned them so they could see what was going on in the world, and so someone over 5' tall could sit comfortably in the passenger seat.

 

The guidelines always perplex me. I have two kids, 3 months apart in age. The eldest is petite and very strong / physically mature. She will be 6 and still wears size 2-3 shorts very comfortably. The youngest is taller, significantly heavier, and physically wimpier. The guidelines would have the soft, wimpy, young one graduate into "less safe" seats first, based only on size. Meanwhile my eldest may be the most kick-ass kid (physically) in her primary school, and still "recommended" to be RF in a baby seat per some people. I would prefer more rational criteria. If my eldest isn't safe in a booster, then no 6yo is.

 

Because it's not about the child's strength. In the forces of a serious accident, the child's "kick-ass-ness" is going to be meaningless. They cannot keep their heads from being internally decaptitated (in children under 4-6) by sheer strength. RF vs FF is pretty much about age. After 4-6yo the safety difference is much smaller no matter the size of the child because of spinal ossification. In a severe accident a 4yo is no more able to support her own head than a newborn, but her spine is stiffer and less likely to sever her spinal cord. The size issue is more about big kids - like mine - who cannot RF until they are 4-6yo because they outgrow the carseats. I'd like my boys RF to 4yo, but I'll be lucky to get them to 2yo because they are large.

 

As far as harnessed vs booster, that's a whole 'nother issue. That's mostly a maturity thing (not physical strength, either). It's pretty debatable to me whether a harness is safer for most 6yos than properly-fitting booster seat. The one issue that very small kids (even older ones!) can face in a booster seat is the tendency to "submarine" or slide under the belt. This is not something that being a "kick ass" kid will help either, unless you are comparing to a child who cannot sit upright properly (in which case, I will agree, they do not belong in a booster).

 

When moving from a booster to a regular vehicle seat, the main issue is height - the ability to properly fit the adult seatbelt. Again, the child's strength is not the issue, seat belts just don't fit right on short people. Also the shape of the child's hip bones as they mature into adults changes. While they are young, boosters can act as "artificial hips", which they don't need as they get older and have a more mature skeleton.

 

The major factors in carseats are age, height, and maturity, not physical strength. If we were able to hold ourselves in position during an accident, we wouldn't need seatbelts for adults either. The forces of a serious accident are likely too strong for that, even for adults.

[Granny_Weatherwax]

After reading through the thread I think my position (no pun intended) is going to be:

 

as long as the child is properly buckled in an appropriately sized non-expired car seat that is installed correctly in the car I am going to call it a win.

[Pamela H in Texas]

The size issue is more about big kids - like mine - who cannot RF until they are 4-6yo because they outgrow the carseats. I'd like my boys RF to 4yo, but I'll be lucky to get them to 2yo because they are large.

 

Is there a carseat that would work? M y oldest was 47 pounds at 2 (and at 5 :) ).

[Momof3littles]

Because it's not about the child's strength. In the forces of a serious accident, the child's "kick-ass-ness" is going to be meaningless. They cannot keep their heads from being internally decaptitated (in children under 4-6) by sheer strength. RF vs FF is pretty much about age. After 4-6yo the safety difference is much smaller no matter the size of the child because of spinal ossification. In a severe accident a 4yo is no more able to support her own head than a newborn, but her spine is stiffer and less likely to sever her spinal cord. The size issue is more about big kids - like mine - who cannot RF until they are 4-6yo because they outgrow the carseats. I'd like my boys RF to 4yo, but I'll be lucky to get them to 2yo because they are large.

 

As far as harnessed vs booster, that's a whole 'nother issue. That's mostly a maturity thing (not physical strength, either). It's pretty debatable to me whether a harness is safer for most 6yos than properly-fitting booster seat. The one issue that very small kids (even older ones!) can face in a booster seat is the tendency to "submarine" or slide under the belt. This is not something that being a "kick ass" kid will help either, unless you are comparing to a child who cannot sit upright properly (in which case, I will agree, they do not belong in a booster).

 

When moving from a booster to a regular vehicle seat, the main issue is height - the ability to properly fit the adult seatbelt. Again, the child's strength is not the issue, seat belts just don't fit right on short people. Also the shape of the child's hip bones as they mature into adults changes. While they are young, boosters can act as "artificial hips", which they don't need as they get older and have a more mature skeleton.

 

The major factors in carseats are age, height, and maturity, not physical strength. If we were able to hold ourselves in position during an accident, we wouldn't need seatbelts for adults either. The forces of a serious accident are likely too strong for that, even for adults.

:iagree:

[ktgrok]

Going to add that the Radian has a load limiter for smaller forward facing kids to try to lessen the risk of internal decapitation. A really cool feature.

 

Also, totally off topic...are there things made for adults, that are safe, to reposition the seatbelt properly? Mine always ends up on my neck, not my chest. I'm 5ft tall and really hate that.

[Mommy_of_4]

Is there a carseat that would work? M y oldest was 47 pounds at 2 (and at 5 :) ).

 

The highest weight limit for RF available right now is the Radian which RF's to 45lbs. There are tons of seats that RF to 40lbs now though. Do you mean 37lbs? I can't even imagine a 47lb 2yr old. My 5 yr old only weighs 39lbs. LOL

[AdventureMoms]

Is there a carseat that would work? M y oldest was 47 pounds at 2 (and at 5 :) ).

 

Holy cow, that is really big! The biggest is the Radian, some of those go to 45lbs. Unfortunately that's it for US seats. You can illegally import one from Sweeden that goes higher (like 55lbs), but not everyone is ok with that. There are a bunch that go to 40lbs, which will get MOST kids well past 2yo, but those really big kids are hard on carseats!

[AdventureMoms]

The highest weight limit for RF available right now is the Radian which RF's to 45lbs. There are tons of seats that RF to 40lbs now though. Do you mean 37lbs? I can't even imagine a 47lb 2yr old. My 5 yr old only weighs 39lbs. LOL

Or I could have just said :iagree:.

 

And my boys are OFF the charts (we use charts for kids older than them) at 35lbs/just under 2yo. 47 is quite a lot bigger than my (bigger than average) 4yo.

[vonfirmath]

FWIW my twins are now about the same size she is in that picture. They are 35lbs, 37" tall, 22months old, and they look about like that. If the limits of the seat were higher they'd fit another couple of years, at least! I do know that some seats, especially older ones, have less legroom (the Britax and Recaro convertibles are famous for their lack of legroom RF), and I can see where knees-to-the-ears would be uncomfortable, but if they looked like DD does in that pic they still had tons of room!

 

The Britax convertibles may be "Famous" for lack of legroom. But my son sat rear facing in them for over 3 years without a complaint. I never saw anything that made me think the legroom was cramped. My daughter will be moving to them when we decide to stop using her Safeseat infant car seat (sometime before the end of the year when it expires)

[AdventureMoms]

The Britax convertibles may be "Famous" for lack of legroom. But my son sat rear facing in them for over 3 years without a complaint. I never saw anything that made me think the legroom was cramped. My daughter will be moving to them when we decide to stop using her Safeseat infant car seat (sometime before the end of the year when it expires)

 

This is true, that a lot of kids sit for a long time in Britax seats. I think in most cases the lack of legroom bothers the adults way more than the kids.

[happypamama]

I do extended rear-facing. My almost 4yo was rear-facing until he turned 3. My 13mo is rear-facing in a big Graco Snugride, and he'll be in it for a few more months; at that point, he'll move to rear-facing in a Graco MyRide 65, and he'll stay rear-facing until probably age 3 as well. I've read the research, but what it boils down to me as is that there's no reason to turn them around if the seat is rated for it, and if they're comfortable. DS2 was totally comfortable rear-facing, and I figure even if the benefit is small, it's still better to break legs than neck.

[celticmom]

I kept dd rearfacing until she was about 18 months old. She was relatively content rearfacing but was very prone to carsickness. I literally carried an extra outfit for her any time we were going any significant distance(and we live in the country). Turning her carseat did dramatically improve her carsickness.

[AdventureMoms]

I do extended rear-facing. My almost 4yo was rear-facing until he turned 3. My 13mo is rear-facing in a big Graco Snugride, and he'll be in it for a few more months; at that point, he'll move to rear-facing in a Graco MyRide 65, and he'll stay rear-facing until probably age 3 as well. I've read the research, but what it boils down to me as is that there's no reason to turn them around if the seat is rated for it, and if they're comfortable. DS2 was totally comfortable rear-facing, and I figure even if the benefit is small, it's still better to break legs than neck.

 

 

And the legs are also at greater risk wen forward-facing (from being flung around and hitting the front seats). RF children's legs AND necks are safer.

[SKL]

People always bring up "my kid never complained, therefore this will work for your kid." That makes no sense to me. That's like me saying my kid was a great sleeper, therefore you should make your kid "cry it out." My kid drinks milk with no problem, therefore your kid's dairy allergy is irrelevant. It's not helpful IMO.

 

Also, I'd really like to know - how common are those horrible accidents that result in internal decapitation of toddlers/preschoolers who are properly restrained in FF car seats? I mean, yeah, we've all seen the crash tests, but how often do you go whizzing down the street at xxx mph and then slam head-on into something big and hard? And for those who do that for whatever reason, isn't the risk mostly manageable by (a) not driving that fast, (b) not using mind-altering substances or driving while asleep, and © making an effort to stay between the lines on the road, at least while your kids are in the car? Honestly, if you exclude all the instances of speeding, altered consciousness, inappropriately restrained (or unrestrained) children, and other poor choices on the part of parents, how many tots / preschoolers are dying just because they are FF?

 

And where are the parallel stats for kids getting hurt worse because they were RF in a rear-ender accident?

 

Information is our friend.

[Mommy_of_4]

People always bring up "my kid never complained, therefore this will work for your kid." That makes no sense to me. That's like me saying my kid was a great sleeper, therefore you should make your kid "cry it out." My kid drinks milk with no problem, therefore your kid's dairy allergy is irrelevant. It's not helpful IMO.

 

Also, I'd really like to know - how common are those horrible accidents that result in internal decapitation of toddlers/preschoolers who are properly restrained in FF car seats? I mean, yeah, we've all seen the crash tests, but how often do you go whizzing down the street at xxx mph and then slam head-on into something big and hard? And for those who do that for whatever reason, isn't the risk mostly manageable by (a) not driving that fast, (b) not using mind-altering substances or driving while asleep, and © making an effort to stay between the lines on the road, at least while your kids are in the car? Honestly, if you exclude all the instances of speeding, altered consciousness, inappropriately restrained (or unrestrained) children, and other poor choices on the part of parents, how many tots / preschoolers are dying just because they are FF?

 

And where are the parallel stats for kids getting hurt worse because they were RF in a rear-ender accident?

 

Information is our friend.

 

I personally don't worry about my driving, it is the idiots in the semis, or the teenagers not paying attention to what they are doing and other drivers talking on the phone or intoxicated. You can not control everybody else's action, the only thing a parent can do is make sure they are doing everything in their power to keep their child safe.; to me that is having my child RF as long as possible. It has been proven RF is safer than FF in head on collisions.

 

Even with best practice, not all injuries can be prevented. Some crashes are unsurvivable. &nbsp Still, much of best practice is based on statistics, and how to have the best chance to reduce injuries. Best practice may also be based on crash forces and physics. Both are very important regarding the use of rear facing seats.

A few factors govern the physics of crashes as they relate to children in carseats. Obviously, the faster the vehicles are going, the more energy will be in the crash. Similarly, heavier vehicles will also have more energy. Perhaps most important is the length of time passengers have to "ride-down" a crash. The longer the "ride-down," the more time your skeleton and organs have to absorb the crash energy. Longer time means less power is transferred to your body, and less chance of injury.

 

 

• Statistics. According to Crashtest.Com, frontal and frontal offset crashes combine for about 72% of severe crashes. Side impacts are about 24%. Rear and rear offset crashes only account for about 4%. The NHTSA FARS database shows similar numbers. The odds of being in a frontal crash with a fatality or very serious injury are many times greater than being in a severe rear-end crash. Rear-enders are more common at lower speeds, though most injuries in these crashes are not as severe - typically, whiplash injuries to adults, especially passengers lacking proper head restraint.

• Crash Energy. Vehicle speed is very important to the energy in a crash, even more important than vehicle weight. Frontal and frontal offset crashes are the most severe because they often happen with both vehicles traveling at high speeds in opposite directions.

   

  Rear and rear offset crashes, on the other hand, often happen at lower speeds. In many cases, one vehicle is stopped or nearly stopped, and the other hits it from behind at a relatively low speed. Other times both vehicles are traveling in the same direction at similar speeds when one is bumped from behind. Either way, the difference in the speed of the vehicles is usually much lower in rear end crashes, and so the energy in the crash will also be much lower. Lower energy means less chance of injury.

• Ride-Down Time. Child passenger safety advocates often stress the importance of "ride-down time." This term simply refers to the time it takes for a person to come to a complete stop in a crash. This is important because the total force on the passenger increases with both the weight of the person and with the speed they were traveling before the crash. On the other hand, the total force on the passenger decreases significantly as the time it takes to stop increases. While we have often have no control of the speeds involved in a crash, we can do some things to help increase the time it takes for a passenger to come to a stop. As mentioned earlier, in a frontal crash the vehicles are often traveling in opposite directions at high speeds. When they crash, both vehicles stop very suddenly, in a small fraction of a second. Even a slight increase in this stopping time can reduce the risk of injury considerably. This is perhaps the most fundamental concept in keeping passengers alive in a crash.

   

  Take the case of a child in a carseat. Ideally, you want the child coupled as tightly as possible to the harness system and carseat, and the carseat coupled as tightly as possible to the vehicle with the seatbelt or LATCH system. When you do this, the child gains all the benefit of "ride-down time" provided by the crushing frame of the vehicle in a crash. With a loose installation of any kind, the child gets less ride-down time and suffers a more severe crash into the harness system. The analogy is that a tight installation is like catching an egg when you "give" backward with your hand to prevent it from breaking. A loose installation will be more like holding your arm and hand rigid when you catch the egg. The egg will splatter in your hand if you don't give, much like what happens to the internal organs of a person when they are flung into a loose seatbelt or harness. By giving with your arm, you cause the egg to slow down gradually, increasing its ride-down time. Vehicle frames, advanced seatbelts and airbags are all designed to help passengers slow down more gradually. Carseats themselves are not designed provide much ride-down time; their main functions are to prevent ejection and to allow the child to be coupled tightly to the vehicle so the frame can provide the necessary ride-down time.

   

  Fortunately, rear-end crashes allow for a lot more ride-down time than frontal crashes. We already mentioned that the potential energy in a rear-end crash is usually lower than a frontal crash because the speeds involved are slower. In addition, the two vehicles are not usually moving toward each other like they would be in a frontal crash. That often means one vehicle is allowed to "give," and the overall ride-down times for both vehicles are much greater, meaning lower forces on the passengers.

• Forces and Area. We know that frontal and frontal offset crashes are more frequent, more severe and usually have less ride-down time than rear-end crashes. In such a frontal crash, it is easy to see why a rear-facing carseat is a better choice. The entire shell of the carseat cradles the child's back, neck and head. Some seats even have foam protection in the shell to cushion the child even more. The crash forces are spread throughout the large area of the child's back and head, reducing the pressure during the crash, and keeping the head from snapping backward with respect to the body. Unlike this rear-facing carseat, a child's legs and head are not restrained at all if they are turned front-facing. In a serious frontal crash with a front-facing carseat, the head and legs of the child are thrown forward like a rag doll, and serious forces are put on the child's spinal cord. In a front-facing carseat, only the harness couples the energy to the child's body. The smaller area of the harness means more pressure on the child. In the egg analogy, the egg is much less likely to break if it is caught using the whole padded area of your hand rather than with just a couple bony fingers.

   

  Similarly, for the uncommon rear-end crash, a front-facing carseat may be safer than a rear-facing model. Still, rear-end crashes are much less common and much less severe than frontal crashes, and it is for that reason we choose to maximize the protection for a frontal crash instead. In addition, rear-facing carseats can also provide an added degree of safety in side-impacts. Rear-facing seats will usually protect the head from being thrown outside the shell of the carseat much better than a front-facing carseat in a frontal offset or side impact. Even a minor rear-end crash can be serious for front-facing adults without proper head restraints, but this is usually not an issue for children in properly fitted carseats and boosters.

• Physiology. For the reasons listed, rear-facing not only turns out to be safer for infants, but for people of all ages. In fact, we would all be safer rear-facing in cars, airplanes, trains and elsewhere. Of course, this would not be acceptable to most adults. Fortunately, adults are somewhat better able to withstand the forces on the head and neck in a severe crash when they are front-facing. Babies have very immature bones and connective tissue, and this is especially the case when they are younger than 1 year or under 20 pounds. For that reason, front-facing babies face a particularly serious risk of spinal cord injury in a frontal crash.

 

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.

[vonfirmath]

1. "My kid never complained" -- because people are moving their kid from rear facing to forward because of the impression that "Those kids must be uncomfortable" My kid is not extended rear-facing because he never complained. He is extended rear-facing because I am convinced that is the safest way for him to ride even past what is legally required. However, when someone argues "But isn't he so uncomfortable" then yeah, I'm going to reply that us adults think things are uncomfortable WAY more than the kid does.

 

2. The risks for a rear-end accident at high speeds are MUCH less than a frontal accident. MOST rear-end accidents, by far, are fender benders.

 

What I know of is two very serious accidents in the last year among friends whose kids are extended rear-facing.

 

Both of whom had their kids come through with flying colors.

 

Here's the story from March 2011 of the rollover accident of one of them: http://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-i-do-what-i-do.html

 

Rachel was rear-ended in one of those rare really high speed accidents:

http://carseatnanny.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-rear-facing-safer-when-youre-rear.html

[skimomma]

I turned my very carsick-prone child right at 1 year and 20 pounds. I did not know any better. Had I known what I do now, I would have had her RFing until the seat limit. She was, and still is, miserable in the car and I doubt what direction she was facing at 1yo would have made a lick of difference. I WAS able to see her and communicate with her better FFing, which is why we turned her the minute we legally could. But again, we did not know any better. I would not do that today.

 

I try very hard not to let guilt and the most recent safety "fad" take the lead in my parenting decisions. However, this is one area that after careful examination of the available research, I have to agree that RFing is the best practice in almost every circumstance in which it is possible.

 

That same examination lead us to harness our dd until she was 8 (older car, no shoulder belt) and then move to a car with shoulder belts but a high-backed booster, which she still rides in at 9. I also need some sort of "booster" because my seat belt cuts across the neck. However, none is available that I know of.

 

I had a showdown with a friend of dd's just yesterday because she refused to sit in the booster I had for her in my car. She is under the legal age in my state to go without (7 yo) and I was not moving the car until she sat in the booster. Her mom was called to pick her up. And her mom was miffed because she does not require her kids to sit in boosters. Tough cookies, mom. Find another carpool buddy.

 

Driving is BY FAR the most dangerous thing we do with kids. The threat of injury or death is quite significant. And oftentimes we have little control over an accident (other drivers, bad weather, road obstructions, vehicle malfunction, etc....). Any thing, even small, that I can do to lessen the risk is worth it IMO.

 

With all that said, I do not judge other parents who have also weighed the safety pros and cons and have come to a different decision. Until I stop seeing 2 yos without car seats sitting in the front seats of cars going by my house, I think we have bigger fish to fry.

[idnib]

I kept both my kids rear-facing until they were at least 3.5. I wanted to keep them rear-facing till 4 but they go to DH's side of the family and have really long legs. :)

 

I felt it was safest. By then it seemed their heads were more proportional to their necks and less likely to snap the spine in an accident.

 

I also still have a booster for my 8 yo and I keep the back part on so he has padding for his head in case of an accident. I specifically bought the model I did because it has a strap which comes up between his legs and hooks to the lap portion of the belt, to prevent "submarining" under the belt. He's very slim (53 lbs at 52 inches) so more likely to slip under in an accident.