Extended Rear Facing questions...

[StaceyinLA]

My dds both extended rear face their children. We have looked at the crash tests and it seems there should be no down side. Of course, I know everything has a down side, and I do realize that in a rear-end collision, a rear-facing child is not as safe. I also know that, statistically, rear-end crashes aren't usually as bad as head-on collisions.

 

My stepson, his gf and 3 children 3 and under were in a serious accident last Friday. Three vehicles were completely demolished. His kids were mildly injured. They were in inappropriate seats and not buckled properly, but none suffered serious injury. I am telling you, it is a miracle they survived the accident it was that bad.

 

It has me really thinking about car seat safety. The tech talked with them at the hospital and told them how lucky they were. I am helping them pick new seats for the kids, and he will have a safety tech install them and show him and his gf how to use them properly.

 

In the meantime, I just want to know what others are thinking based on research they've seen.

[Momof3littles]

We extended RF all of our kids without hesitation.  I'm so glad they were okay.

 

I'm sure carseat.org has a million links if you are looking at research.

[Desert Strawberry]

I second car seat.org and add NHTSA. Watch the videos. That's what did it for us. 

 

Mine have been rfing as late as 4.5. That may sound ridiculous, but he's tiny. He's 35 pounds at 5years and still sits in his 5point toddler seat. He may be in it till he's 6. He's just really small. 

 

Dh and I have worked with a lot of trauma patients. Motor vehicle collisions are the number one killer of children from 1-14.  This is one area where we can protect our children. 

 

I am glad they are all safe. I am also glad you are stepping in to help.

[StaceyinLA]

Thank you. We have watched the videos, and I agree they are compelling. It is why my dgs is still RF at 3, with no real plans to turn him around.

 

I think I was just shocked that, when I contacted the state-sponsored car seat safety program, the lady really wasn't all that gung-ho about the extended RF. My stepson's youngest is 15 months old and was ff in the accident. Of course, the car seat tech at the hospital did tell them how lucky they were, and he was immediately immobilized until they could x-ray his neck. When I mentioned that I wanted to get him in a RF seat though, the state safety tech really didn't act like it was a big deal. She said there is other research that questions where their heads are in the vehicle when rf and how that can be a risk, and other nonsense. It just seemed absurd that with all the push for extended RF and support from AAP and other major organizations, she'd support that fully and wholeheartedly; the certified tech at the hospital surely did!

[MomtoCandJ]

We didn't with dd1 and she's now in a belt positioning booster. Dd2 is rear facing in an infant seat. We might extend rear facing with her. I just wish the seat belts were farther apart in my car so that dd1 could still be in her 5 pt harness seat. I have dd2 in the middle and an extra booster on the other side since we frequently end up with another child in the car.

[Desert Strawberry]

I think that tech is possibly ill-informed.

 

There is debated about higher weight 5 point harnessing, as immobilizing the body may increase stress on the neck. There isn't enough research yet to say whether a 5 point harness is safer than lap and shoulder belts once the child is over 40 pounds and 5 years. 

 

But rear facing is well proven to be safer up to the height and weight limits of the seat. Unless the 15 month old is huge (my oldest was 40 pounds at a year. I couldn't extended rf him), there should be no question whether rear facing is preferable.

[shawthorne44]

Really, rear-facing is safer for everyone.  If I had a self-driving car I'd face the rear.  

[StaceyinLA]

I was certainly thinking she was ill-informed, but wondered if there was something I was missing; new research to contradict ERF studies or something. I just can't see it personally; the crash videos are pretty much undeniable.

[vonfirmath]

My daughter will turn 3 years old on Sunday and is still sitting rear-facing in her seat.

 

My son stayed rear-facing until 3y 1m-ish. He was nearing the weight limit and I didn't want to measure weight every day to see if he went over.  DS just went to booster in every car at the beginning of this summer.

 

 

[SKL]

I rf'd my kids until about 2.5 because developmentally, they were slow to develop physically, and all the braking we do all day would put more pressure on their spines than I preferred.  In those days RF was not a "thing" for tots.

 

There is a slight benefit statistically to RF past the age when the child has good head control.  The benefit is so slight that it does not outweigh some other considerations that may arise for individual kids.  For example, a child who screams or pukes because of RF is a distraction and causes more risk than the statistical benefit.

 

So if there is no particular reason to turn the child to FF, RF is a fine choice.  Eventually I wanted my kids to be able to see out the front windows, to see what I was seeing so we could talk about things.  I would probably do the same again.

[Desert Strawberry]

I rf'd my kids until about 2.5 because developmentally, they were slow to develop physically, and all the braking we do all day would put more pressure on their spines than I preferred.  In those days RF was not a "thing" for tots.

 

There is a slight benefit statistically to RF past the age when the child has good head control.  The benefit is so slight that it does not outweigh some other considerations that may arise for individual kids.  For example, a child who screams or pukes because of RF is a distraction and causes more risk than the statistical benefit.

 

So if there is no particular reason to turn the child to FF, RF is a fine choice.  Eventually I wanted my kids to be able to see out the front windows, to see what I was seeing so we could talk about things.  I would probably do the same again.

More current research has shown that the protection of extended rear facing is substantial. It's not just mildly better. It's inarguably better. 

 

Car seat crying and motion sickness are IMO not good reasons to turn a toddler. I have had car seat screamers. Most of them outgrew it, even though I didn't turn them. My oldest scream rear facing, screamed forward facing, screamed in a 5point and screamed in a belt positioning booster. We tried around 10 different seats. Nothing helped. But we always made the safest choice available. Some kids hate the car. Some kids hate bathing, but we still make them do it.

 

I had two babies who had seizures. We installed mirrors so that I could watch in case they had one, pull over and do CPR/rescue breathing if needed. They stayed rear facing for 2.5 and 4.5 years. 

 

Car seats now are better designed, more comfortable, larger, easier to install, better fitting, and even safer than they were 10 years ago. 

 

An older baby or toddler does not have to recline as much as an infant. For some babies, adjusting the recline is enough to make them comfortable. It also allows them to see out the windows. In my van, only one child can see out the front window. We still manage to converse adequately.

[LucyStoner]

I rf'd my kids until about 2.5 ... In those days RF was not a "thing" for tots.

 

???

 

My son is 11 and we RF until he reached his Britax Wizard carseat's RF limit. He was top of the charts for height and weight and that wasn't until he was 3. Lots of parents I knew then did as well and it was recommended in the CPS tech certification course I took in 2004. RF toddlers isn't new.

[SKL]

More current research has shown that the protection of extended rear facing is substantial. It's not just mildly better. It's inarguably better. 

 

Car seat crying and motion sickness are IMO not good reasons to turn a toddler. I have had car seat screamers. Most of them outgrew it, even though I didn't turn them. My oldest scream rear facing, screamed forward facing, screamed in a 5point and screamed in a belt positioning booster. We tried around 10 different seats. Nothing helped. But we always made the safest choice available. Some kids hate the car. Some kids hate bathing, but we still make them do it.

 

I had two babies who had seizures. We installed mirrors so that I could watch in case they had one, pull over and do CPR/rescue breathing if needed. They stayed rear facing for 2.5 and 4.5 years. 

 

Car seats now are better designed, more comfortable, larger, easier to install, better fitting, and even safer than they were 10 years ago. 

 

An older baby or toddler does not have to recline as much as an infant. For some babies, adjusting the recline is enough to make them comfortable. It also allows them to see out the windows. In my van, only one child can see out the front window. We still manage to converse adequately.

 

How many lives were lost that would have been saved if the only thing done differently was RF instead of FF?  The last time I checked, the total was 1 life, out of all the thousands of accidents involving tots and older kids.  (No, I will not be able to find the data and link it now.)  If you have updated information on what the statistical difference is, I would find that interesting.

 

[SKL]

???

 

My son is 11 and we RF until he reached his Britax Wizard carseat's RF limit. He was top of the charts for height and weight and that wasn't until he was 3. Lots of parents I knew then did as well and it was recommended in the CPS tech certification course I took in 2004. RF toddlers isn't new.

 

I never took a CPS tech certification course, so my bad.  Most people have not.  My kids may have been the only 2yo+ RF kids in my state in those days.  People thought I was nuts.  Maybe it was different where you live.

 

Anyway, it's common and often recommended now.  My point was that I did it for my own individual reasons, that other people may have different reasons to do or not do it.  Also I wanted to make it clear that I am not anti-RF or anything like that.

[StaceyinLA]

Maybe not only lives lost, but injuries sustained? The crash videos speak for themselves. Why not do the most you can to keep your children safe when you can since there are so many things you can't control?

[Mommyof4ks]

I have only been in one wreck, and I was rear ended by a lady too busy on her phone going 50MPH. My dd was 22 months, and she was FF. We were told it was a good thing she was FF or she could have been hurt (she was fine, and was running around the parking lot we pulled into). It depends on the kind of wreck you plan to be in I think. Similar to the positioning issue, some say baby should always be in the middle, but if the car catches on fire then the sides are better. I worry about ending up in water and getting my big kids out of those booster seats in the very back of my van, but in a regular wreck those seats help them stay in the van unless it catches on fire and they cannot get out. See how stressful all of this can be, ugh. Yes, fire really scares me, because we lost a family friend when her seatbelt jammed and she could not get out of a burning car. We just do the best we can and pray a lot.

[blondeviolin]

My boys are pretty solid and some of my kids quite tall. We rear-face each child until we have the next baby (~2yo) and only forward face then because rear-facing the toddler has meant taking out the car seat for my big kids to get in the back every time we got in the car.

 

My 16mo is still rear facing and, seeing as I'm not pregnant, will for a while. Car seats are much more comfy nowadays and none of my kids--even my tall ones--have complained about crumpled legs. IMO, better a broken leg than a broken neck.

 

FWIW, we finally have a child riding in a booster. Abby was 8 when she moved to a HBB. Everyone else sits in a harness still. (My 6yo would probably move to a booster if we could fit it in with our three across configuration.)

[Starr]

Part of it will depend on what the parents will actually do. It doesn't matter rf or ff so much if they are not only installed properly but restrained properly. They are going to have to take the time to latch them in without much wiggle room. And watch and adjust when they grow.  :grouphug:

[StaceyinLA]

We're turning around the 17 month old soon. Her legs are curled up quite uncomfortably in her seat and at this point I'm not overly concerned about forward facing her. My MIL was a pediatric nurse until about a decade ago and was shocked when I told her the new guidelines on that. She thought it was quite overkill for only a modest increase in safety. I'm inclined to agree with her.

 

For us, at least, we're comfortable turning bigger kids around. That's a risk assessment our family is willing to take. Everyone had to decide for themselves where that line is, when you're crossing into guidelines and advisement territory. Extended rear facing when the kid is maxing out the size charts already just isn't a clear cut decision.

You MIL would've flipped if she would've heard the car seat techs that spoke to us in the ER after EIGHT children under 6 were brought in from my stepson's wreck! And I doubt they would agree that it's only a modest increase in safety. Even if it is just a modest increase, why wouldn't we want that?

 

I think after 2 years old the size would certainly be up to personal preference, but up until that point it mostly has to do with spinal development and potential for internal decapitation. It's a very strong case for young toddlers based on their physical development.

 

I think we have learned a lot in ten years in terms of safety. Ten years ago cars didn't have side airbags, rear seat shoulder belts, etc. Car seats have come a long way. I can't discount the studies that show RF is better just because that wasn't the recommendation 5 or 10 years ago; the videos are compelling.

 

The law will require RF until 2; it's just a matter of time.

[Guest]

I finally bought dd26's first car seat when she was somewhere between four and six months old and it was the second cheapest one at the thrift store.

 

I rearfaced ds6 until he was well over four years old and maxed out his Graco MyRide 65. I would have put the $300+ on my credit card for a new seat to gain another five lbs if there had been any chance of younger siblings or a grandbaby before the new seat expired.

 

When you know better, you do better.

 

I did want to mention that ds6 was one of those kids who hated car seats so much that it was preferable (and probably safer, since it was so difficult for me to concentrate on driving) to spend the day walking across town and back with him in a carrier to go to the post office than to spend fifteen minutes driving. This started to resolve itself at the same age that it would have been legal (but not advisable) to turn him FF in 2009ish. I think many parents attribute happier passengers to "the big turnaround" when it is really just maturity.

 

carseat.org has already been mentioned and if you only have time for one child passenger safety site, I heartily second that recommendation, but Car Seats For The Littles:

 

http://csftl.org/why-rear-facing-the-science-junkies-guide/

 

is also excellent and if you do Facebook, the group there is very prompt about answering questions and very polite, even when I have asked some serious doozies, like making sure I wasn't being unreasonable about no rides in big bro's '78 Camaro unless big bro gets the seatbelts retrofitted not no way not no how not even around the parking lot.

 

 

 

[ChristusG]

We extend everything regarding car seats.

 

Currently my 10 year old just moved out of a high backed booster last month. Now, in our 3rd row she can sit with just the regular seatbelt. But in the second row she has to use a backless booster. She sat in a 5 point harness until nearly 8.

 

Currently my 7 year old just moved out of her 5 point harness last month. She's now using the high backed booster that my older daughter just moved out of.

 

My 2 year old (turns 3 in late October) is still rear facing. She will be until at least 3....possibly later as she's on the small side. All of my kids have rear faced to at least 3 years old....possibly longer.

 

I figure that if it's safer, then why not do it???

[Joker]

Neither of my dds were RF past 10 months. They are 12 and 14 and I don't remember any talk about keeping them RF after they hit 20 pounds. Even if I did, youngest would have been turned forward as soon as I felt possible because of how awful it was for her facing rear. She was a much happier passenger in the car after turning her forward (which made me a better, less distracted driver). I'm just happy I don't have any younger children and have to make these decisions now.

[SemiSweet]

My first was a big guy and I turned him ff right at a year because I just really didn't know any better. With dd I waited until about 18 months when my exh turned her. My little guy is still going strong at almost 18mo and will rf until he hits the limit for the seat. He's a big guy so it may only be 2.5-3 yo but I'm fine with that. When you know better you do better.

 

Car seat legislation came to be because people weren't restraining their kids at all, every so often I still see little ones bouncing around a moving vehicle. I know the AAP recently changed the recommended age for rf to 2yo, I imagine the law will follow suit in the not too distant future.

[rebbyribs]

I haven't done much extended rear-facing because it's logistically difficult in our vehicle.

 

When DD7 was a baby, we didn't have a car and took transit most places.  She screamed her head off in the car on the rare occasion we rented one and drove somewhere.  I think I installed her carseat forward-facing on her first ride after her first birthday, which was when she was about 15 months old.

 

DD5 and DS5 are twins.  When they fit in small seats (like the Combi Cocorro), I could have both of them rear-facing, no problem.  Once they got too big for those seats and required bigger seats, there wasn't room to install a big rf seat behind the driver's seat.  It would've been possible to have one rf in the middle seat, but I opted to turn both of them ff at that point.  They were about 20 months.

 

DS2's carseat got turned around early this summer (a couple months after he turned 2).  He was rf in his Radian and fit just fine, but the seat blocked the air vents in the car, so that all the kids were sweltering once the weather got warm.  

 

Our 10-month-old is still rear-facing in the Cocorro.  I'm hoping to keep him in that seat up until 2 years (if he fits - he's tall!), and then have him RF in the Radian the following winter.  If we still have the same vehicle, I'm going to need to turn him around to keep his seat from blocking the vents.

 

In our vehicle, there are some tradeoffs with having kids extended rear facing.  I assume others have similar issues that make extended rear facing impractical.  Those huge RF seats just don't work well in small vehicles.

[StaceyinLA]

Neither of my dds were RF past 10 months. They are 12 and 14 and I don't remember any talk about keeping them RF after they hit 20 pounds. Even if I did, youngest would have been turned forward as soon as I felt possible because of how awful it was for her facing rear. She was a much happier passenger in the car after turning her forward (which made me a better, less distracted driver). I'm just happy I don't have any younger children and have to make these decisions now.

I feel like the RF law has been at least 1 year old and 20 lbs. for a long time. I didn't realize it was ever just 20 lbs. I never turned any before a year, and my baby is 19. Gosh I can scarcely remember what my kids seats even looked like. I know it was nothing like now. Things have surely changed.

[StaceyinLA]

I haven't done much extended rear-facing because it's logistically difficult in our vehicle.

 

When DD7 was a baby, we didn't have a car and took transit most places. She screamed her head off in the car on the rare occasion we rented one and drove somewhere. I think I installed her carseat forward-facing on her first ride after her first birthday, which was when she was about 15 months old.

 

DD5 and DS5 are twins. When they fit in small seats (like the Combi Cocorro), I could have both of them rear-facing, no problem. Once they got too big for those seats and required bigger seats, there wasn't room to install a big rf seat behind the driver's seat. It would've been possible to have one rf in the middle seat, but I opted to turn both of them ff at that point. They were about 20 months.

 

DS2's carseat got turned around early this summer (a couple months after he turned 2). He was rf in his Radian and fit just fine, but the seat blocked the air vents in the car, so that all the kids were sweltering once the weather got warm.

 

Our 10-month-old is still rear-facing in the Cocorro. I'm hoping to keep him in that seat up until 2 years (if he fits - he's tall!), and then have him RF in the Radian the following winter. If we still have the same vehicle, I'm going to need to turn him around to keep his seat from blocking the vents.

 

In our vehicle, there are some tradeoffs with having kids extended rear facing. I assume others have similar issues that make extended rear facing impractical. Those huge RF seats just don't work well in small vehicles.

Those radians are SO tall. One dd has her two in radians and my other dd has a radian in their large vehicle, but had to get a Britax Pavilion for her smaller vehicle (great seat; just doesn't RF as long). She is hoping they'll be able to replace her vehicle with something larger before dgd outgrows the Britax in the RF position so she can use a bigger seat to keep her RF longer (she's not heavy, but she's tall).

 

Do you use the wedge with your radian? That does help so much with the recline on it for kids past a year; it fits much better RF behind my dd's driver seat - at full recline they couldn't put it behind the driver's seat.

 

The nice thing about the radian is how open it is and how much more visibility they have out of it. I know my youngest dgs that has both the Britax and the radian, rides much more contentedly in her radian.

[vonfirmath]

I rf'd my kids until about 2.5 because developmentally, they were slow to develop physically, and all the braking we do all day would put more pressure on their spines than I preferred.  In those days RF was not a "thing" for tots.

 

There is a slight benefit statistically to RF past the age when the child has good head control.  The benefit is so slight that it does not outweigh some other considerations that may arise for individual kids.  For example, a child who screams or pukes because of RF is a distraction and causes more risk than the statistical benefit.

 

So if there is no particular reason to turn the child to FF, RF is a fine choice.  Eventually I wanted my kids to be able to see out the front windows, to see what I was seeing so we could talk about things.  I would probably do the same again.

 

My son just turned 7 and I RF'd him until past 3. It was being talked about on the boards I was on, with data pushed, etc even then.

[Seeking Squirrels]

We turned DD6 FF a couple weeks after she turned 4 and she is still harnessed. DD2 will stay RF until she outgrows the highest limit seat we have (a radian rxt). I *might* let her have a say at 4 if she still fits rf at that time.

 

I very strongly believe in rear facing kids for as long as possible. I know most people find that overkill, so I usually just push for 2 years. I hope that 2 becomes the new 1 soon. If we can normalize making it to 2, going a little beyond that will not seem so crazy. Then a little longer....

[SKL]

RF in a modestly sized sedan is difficult, though.  Even though my kids' seats (and my kids) were on the smaller side, our RF seats required the front seats to be shoved way forward (which probably wasn't super safe for the people in the front seats).  I don't see asking all parents to buy a minivan just so they can RF their kids longer.

 

Also, it's said that RF makes it more likely that parents will forget their kids are in the car.  So that is a safety factor too.

[Arcadia]

I think I was just shocked that, when I contacted the state-sponsored car seat safety program, the lady really wasn't all that gung-ho about the extended RF.

Maybe it depends on what car seats were given/donated to the car seat safety program. For example a high back booster cost a lot more than a no back booster. A Britax or Radian cost a lot more than a Cosco Scenara for rear facing seats.

[Carrie12345]

My older 3 were turned at a year simply because that's what was done. @@

I did turn my younger two at 2years and some-odd months. I would have preferred to go longer, but I wasn't able to find a way to deal with that in captain's seats without pulling my back every time I tried to lift a 30+lb toddler into position.

 

There are many aspects that play into safety.  I make sure my 2 seats (the 7yo is still 5pt harnessed) are suitable for their heights and weights, properly installed, used correctly every time, that my breaks are in proper working order, I don't drive in bad weather (maybe outside of an emergency,) pay careful attention to my surroundings, etc. And then accept that simply pulling out into the street is a risk.  Control the controllable, make peace with what isn't.

 

I can't imagine not rear facing until 2 (I think it's required in some states now?) and I support the advice to go beyond that, but I think there are definitely riskier things a driver can do than put a 2yo forward facing in a good, proper seat. KWIM?

[Carrie12345]

I wanted to keep ds RF as long as possible, but he was so tall (like 99th percentile for height at one point) I don't know how that it's physically possible to do that for a few years considering the legs having no where to go, being all bunched up. I'm seriously trying to imagine how this is done with any 3yr old. :confused1:

 

Ds uses a 5-point harness. He's 6 and most people we know have their kids using the booster only with seatbelt by now. Or nothing. We do own a booster as a backup seat, but prefer to keep him in the 5-point harness. I don't know why people are in such a rush to take away the booster.

 

Google "extended rear facing" images.  They look pretty comfy to me!  Unfortunately, it put *me* in pain, lol.

[Laura Corin]

Currently my 10 year old just moved out of a high backed booster last month. Now, in our 3rd row she can sit with just the regular seatbelt. But in the second row she has to use a backless booster. She sat in a 5 point harness until nearly 8.

 

 

I'm with you.  Hobbes (on the small side) was using a backless booster until around the time he turned 13.  He didn't meet the criteria for using a belt alone until then.  And he won't sit in the front (nor did Calvin, who is tall) until he is fifteen.

 

I let the boys run all kinds of productive risks - they are very much free range - but I can't see the productive risks involved in moving children on through car seats fast.

 

L

[SKL]

Google "extended rear facing" images.  They look pretty comfy to me!  Unfortunately, it put *me* in pain, lol.

 

Some kids are content to sit rear-facing, others are decidedly not content.  They didn't ask for photos of kids who looked unhappy or uncomfortable sitting that way.  A little bias there.  Well-intended, I'm sure, but still.

 

My kids were in the content and comfy camp.  The were petite, easy-going, and had each other back there.  But even they used to get irritated when I stopped at a long red light.  Like, what is going on up there, why aren't we going?  They couldn't see the road, had no idea what a traffic light was.

[SKL]

Why? Their head is further away from the impact. I have not heard this or researched it. Just thinking aloud.

 

 

The same reason RF is safer in a head-on collision.  The movement of the head/neck/spine because of the impact.

 

I was in a very bad rear-ender before I had kids.  A jackknifing semi slammed me into the ditch, squishing my car accordion-style.  If I had had RF kids in the car with me, they probably would have died.

[Carrie12345]

Some kids are content to sit rear-facing, others are decidedly not content.  They didn't ask for photos of kids who looked unhappy or uncomfortable sitting that way.  A little bias there.  Well-intended, I'm sure, but still.

 

My kids were in the content and comfy camp.  The were petite, easy-going, and had each other back there.  But even they used to get irritated when I stopped at a long red light.  Like, what is going on up there, why aren't we going?  They couldn't see the road, had no idea what a traffic light was.

 

Huh. I'm not sure if *bias* is the right word.  I mean, surely there are plenty of parents who could have taken pictures of kids who were miserable in a car, period, whatever their seating arrangements.  I had a couple of car haters that made trips oh so much fun, lol.  My niece screamed bloody murder in the car through her entire infancy.  We still had to follow the laws of the land and of physics.

 

A poster said she couldn't picture larger kids being comfortable.  I directed her toward images.  :::shrug:::

[AmandaVT]

Huh. I'm not sure if *bias* is the right word.  I mean, surely there are plenty of parents who could have taken pictures of kids who were miserable in a car, period, whatever their seating arrangements.  I had a couple of car haters that made trips oh so much fun, lol.  My niece screamed bloody murder in the car through her entire infancy.  We still had to follow the laws of the land and of physics.

 

A poster said she couldn't picture larger kids being comfortable.  I directed her toward images.  :::shrug:::

 

DS was (and still is) a very carsick kid. He screamed nonstop, from the day we left the hospital, every time he was in the car for more than 5 min. We still kept him RF until he was 2 1/2. Did it suck? Yes. Was it a lot safer? Yes. That's why we did it. I drove a small, older Subaru Legacy at the time and we all fit fine - even DH who is over 6'. 

 

My parents were car safety "nuts" when my brother and I were small. We both had carseats from the time we left the hospital until around 5-6. That was 37 years ago. They also insisted that we wear seatbelts once we were out of carseats and neither of us were allowed in the front seat until around 12. Served us well when we got hit by a drunk driver going 60mph while we were stopped in traffic. Had to pick shattered glass out of our hair and had some bumps and bruises, but nothing like what could have happened.

[Seeking Squirrels]

RF in a modestly sized sedan is difficult, though. Even though my kids' seats (and my kids) were on the smaller side, our RF seats required the front seats to be shoved way forward (which probably wasn't super safe for the people in the front seats). I don't see asking all parents to buy a minivan just so they can RF their kids longer.

 

Also, it's said that RF makes it more likely that parents will forget their kids are in the car. So that is a safety factor too.

I drive a little two door car. Trust me I know. But it can be done. I actually had two rear facers in that car three days a week for almost two years. I would love a mini van, but it's not necessary for rear facing.

[SKL]

I drive a little two door car. Trust me I know. But it can be done. I actually had two rear facers in that car three days a week for almost two years. I would love a mini van, but it's not necessary for rear facing.

 

I would be concerned that some people would install the seats incorrectly to try to make them work in a modestly-sized car.  Wouldn't that create new risks that possibly outweigh the statistically small benefits?

 

My kids' seats said they had to be at a certain angle regardless of which way they were facing.  (There was a built-in level to show if the angle was right.)

 

In my Saturn Ion (which is a mid-sized car), the passenger seat had to be shoved all the way forward as far as it could go, and (because I had a 2nd car seat in the middle) the driver's seat was pushed forward to a point where it was barely safe for me (an average sized woman) to drive.  A regular-sized man or a heavy woman could not have driven the car with the RF seats properly positioned.  Unless the bigger RF seats don't have to be at an angle, but does that seem right?

[Slartibartfast]

Ds was RF until he was about four. He is still in a five point harness and he is six.

[SKL]

oh wow I just saw the images. I had NO idea that was even allowed. I thought that if a kid looks like they have outgrown it, they have!

 

Yeah, especially the one that has the kid in the front seat, those that appear to have the seats incorrectly secured, and those where the kid appears to be at or above the height limit.  Of course it does not show how the people in the front seat are sitting.

[BarbecueMom]

Oh I wasn't paying attention to the height so much as just lots of legs touching the backseat or being folded to fit. I figured once the legs got that long it was a no no.

 

I need to buy a carseat in a few months for a newborn, but we want to get the kind with the removable portion to carry indoors. Ugh, this probably means extra stages of carseats once again.

If you want the bucket seat, go for the higher weight limit ones. We bought a KeyFit 30 and my 1yo (about 27 pounds) is still in it with plenty of room. It's so nice to be able to stick him, still sleeping, in a shopping cart with his seat rather than wake him up everywhere we go. I'm going to miss it when he moves to a non-removable RF seat soon.

[Seeking Squirrels]

I would be concerned that some people would install the seats incorrectly to try to make them work in a modestly-sized car. Wouldn't that create new risks that possibly outweigh the statistically small benefits?

 

My kids' seats said they had to be at a certain angle regardless of which way they were facing. (There was a built-in level to show if the angle was right.)

 

In my Saturn Ion (which is a mid-sized car), the passenger seat had to be shoved all the way forward as far as it could go, and (because I had a 2nd car seat in the middle) the driver's seat was pushed forward to a point where it was barely safe for me (an average sized woman) to drive. A regular-sized man or a heavy woman could not have driven the car with the RF seats properly positioned. Unless the bigger RF seats don't have to be at an angle, but does that seem right?

True you do have to ensure everyone can ride safely and that the seats are in properly. With my oldest, she was in a radian rf behind the passenger seat. It shoved the seat too far forward to be comfortable for me so I rode in the back behind the driver seat if DH was along. DD2 is rf in a true fit and the front seat isn't quite so far forward. So she is behind the passenger seat and my oldest is behind the driver. It definitely adds an extra dimension to the puzzle. I would never recommend rf just for the sake of it if the seat is not in safely. The very safest seat is the one installed and used properly, regardless of direction or brand name.

 

They can go more upright (most seats, you have to go by manufacturers instructions) once a child can sit up and has good head control without flopping when asleep. Infants need a 45 degree recline to keep their airway open properly. An older child doesn't need that and can sit more upright. I think I moved my first more upright at about 10 months and my second was probably about 14 months just because she was content as she was until then. Also some seats just sit differently. Both seats my girls rf'd in are very tall. I can sit in front with the true fit but not as well with the radian.

[Seeking Squirrels]

Oh I wasn't paying attention to the height so much as just lots of legs touching the backseat or being folded to fit. I figured once the legs got that long it was a no no.

 

I need to buy a carseat in a few months for a newborn, but we want to get the kind with the removable portion to carry indoors. Ugh, this probably means extra stages of carseats once again.

This is a very common misconception. Legs touching the back seat is not at all a concern. There have been no reports of broken legs due to rear facing. However, broken legs are one of the most common injuries for forward facers. It seems uncomfortable to us as adults but it's how kids sit most of the time anyway. Much more comfortable for them to sit criss cross or stick their legs up than to have them dangle.

 

I have a pic of my dd on her first ff ride with her feet up on the back of the front seat, just as she rode rf! Lol

[Tammi K]

Similar to the positioning issue, some say baby should always be in the middle, but if the car catches on fire then the sides are better. I worry about ending up in water and getting my big kids out of those booster seats in the very back of my van, but in a regular wreck those seats help them stay in the van unless it catches on fire and they cannot get out. See how stressful all of this can be, ugh.

:iagree:   I think you do the best you can based on all the factors you need to consider. At some point, unless you only ever have one child, someone has to be in the 'less safe' position. 

 

I remember way back when only had one,  her carseat buckled in the middle position, and a friend needed a ride. She opened the back door to buckle in her baby and asked if I could move my daughter's carseat to the side because, "the middle seat is the safest place for [her] baby."  Yep, move my child out of the middle so she could put her child there. :confused1:  ( Considering we were only going to be driving about 3 block, on a military base with a 10 mph speed limit, it wasn't a major issue. But, still! )

 

Until developers create a car that can be steered facing backward while allowing us all to ride in the backseat, we just have to do our best.

[Desert Strawberry]

Some stores will let you take a test seat out to the car to try it. 

I have puzzled many seats together in many configurations, mainly in small cars. You just keep working at it till you find a good fit. Read the reviews of the seat you are considering. Ask on a car seat forum about various configurations and combinations. Online listings include dimensions. Pull out a measuring tape and see exactly how much space you have to work with.

[Desert Strawberry]

You might want to look at the width of the base, instead of the width of the seat. There is one infant seat that has an exceptionally narrow base. I don't recall which one. We didn't end up using it. Some of the convertible seats that look enormous are actually quite slim. Radians are designed to fit three across in most cars. A friend had three in a small Saturn. It was amazing. 

My youngest is in a Grace My Ride 65. It's a monster, but he sits three across with my 5yo' s OnSide Air and my oldest. It's close, but the seats fit together beautifully. 

My new baby will also have a My Ride 65next to my 8yo's booster. No problem there.

[Tammi K]

My youngest is well beyond carseat age, so I don't have a dog in this fight; but, for what it's worth, I googled 'rear facing car seat' and a few of the kids I saw were flat-out too big for the seats they are in (head above the top of seat) and quite a few either had the harness on the wrong setting or it was just to small (harness should drop over shoulders , insertion point at carseat should not be below shoulder - based on my recollection of adjusting carseat harnesses 'oh so many' years ago).  That begs the question, is it still better for your child to be rear facing in a carseat that is too small, or is it better to turn them forward and use a booster?

[Desert Strawberry]

I agree that many children are in inappropriate or I'll-fitting seats. The last estimate I saw was 8 in 10 children were improperly seated.

However, the rule for shoulder height of the belts is rear facing- below, forward facing-above.

 

A child is always safest in a seat that fits. If the child is over the weight limit, the seats will fail. Belts will tear, shells will crack, buckles will snap. That's why it's so important to read the instructions on your own seat and make sure it is properly installed for your child.

[Desert Strawberry]

Fwiw, I did the same search. I didn't see any kids who were too big for their seats. There are a few who needed their headrests raised up an inch or two, and a lot with too loose or questionable belt placement. But none that clearly didn't fit in their seats. 

Much larger than we are accustomed to seeing rear facing? Yes. But still appropriate seating.