How long did you rear face your child's carseat?

[Colleen27]

Because children under the age of 4 years old are safer riding rear facing that forward facing. I don't know many 4 year olds that weigh less that 30 pounds. Also, many of the car seats that only rear face to 30 pounds are rather small in shell height, and can be outgrown before a child even reaches 30 pounds.

Actually, EVERYONE (except the driver, of course) would be better off rear facing because the seat provides protection from the violent deceleration of a crash. We focus in on kids because safety seats allow them to face the rear, but the same physics apply to everyone - the sudden stop/change of direction of an accident is more effectively cushioned by a seat than a seatbelt strap, and the force of that stop is spread out over the entire body rather than the limited points that come in contact with the belt.

 

[Ava]

Actually, EVERYONE (except the driver, of course) would be better off rear facing because the seat provides protection from the violent deceleration of a crash. We focus in on kids because safety seats allow them to face the rear, but the same physics apply to everyone - the sudden stop/change of direction of an accident is more effectively cushioned by a seat than a seatbelt strap, and the force of that stop is spread out over the entire body rather than the limited points that come in contact with the belt.

This is true but another reason to focus on young children is physiology. Until around age 4, a child's head is proportionally much heavier than his body (about 25% of body weight, compared to an adult at about 6%). If a child's head snaps forward in a crash, the heavy head can put tremendous pressure on the neck/spinal cord & cause serious spinal cord injury.

 

[Erica09M]

Actually, EVERYONE (except the driver, of course) would be better off rear facing because the seat provides protection from the violent deceleration of a crash. We focus in on kids because safety seats allow them to face the rear, but the same physics apply to everyone - the sudden stop/change of direction of an accident is more effectively cushioned by a seat than a seatbelt strap, and the force of that stop is spread out over the entire body rather than the limited points that come in contact with the belt.

Of course everyone is safer rear facing, I know that However, as a child's bone ossify and mature, they can safely ride forward facing. It's when the bones are so immature that they can't protect the spinal cord in an accident that it's an issue. Vertebrae do not completely ossify until a child is 3-6 years old, this is why it's so important for children to ride rear facing prior to that.

 

[DisneyMomma81]

Actually, EVERYONE (except the driver, of course) would be better off rear facing because the seat provides protection from the violent deceleration of a crash. We focus in on kids because safety seats allow them to face the rear, but the same physics apply to everyone - the sudden stop/change of direction of an accident is more effectively cushioned by a seat than a seatbelt strap, and the force of that stop is spread out over the entire body rather than the limited points that come in contact with the belt.

This is true but another reason to focus on young children is physiology. Until around age 4, a child's head is proportionally much heavier than his body (about 25% of body weight, compared to an adult at about 6%). If a child's head snaps forward in a crash, the heavy head can put tremendous pressure on the neck/spinal cord & cause serious spinal cord injury.

Of course everyone is safer rear facing, I know that However, as a child's bone ossify and mature, they can safely ride forward facing. It's when the bones are so immature that they can't protect the spinal cord in an accident that it's an issue. Vertebrae do not completely ossify until a child is 3-6 years old, this is why it's so important for children to ride rear facing prior to that.

 

[Erica09M]

Which is exactly the type of (guilt-laden) reasoning I mean.

As I said, I turned my child at 1 and was happy to do so, and would do it again.

Even though we have all of this research proving how much safer rear facing is, and recommendations from the AAP and NHTSA, you'd still happily turn your child forward facing at one year? Why? Do you not think there is a safety difference? I'm real do want to understand why someone would make this decision.

 

[luckylady131]

Can anyone provide a direction to see actual studies of documented accidents where toddlers in forward-facing carseats did not fare as well as they would have in rear-facing.

I try googling it and get a TON of sites that say 'it is better' and that 'it is because they are too small,etc' but I cannot for the life of me find any actual sites that have statistical comparisons of crash results of forward vs. rear in similar accidents with similar size/age passengers.

I feel like I did back when I was researching BF'ing...A TON of places tell you 'breast is best' but it is very difficult, even impossible at that time at least 8 years ago, to find actual studies of BF vs. Non-BF in similar socio-econimic situations and what the results are 1 year, 2 year and 10 years down the road. Or even any of those!

Thank you. That's kind of what I thought too.

Unfortunately, the skeptic in me thinks that if all these statements saying 'rear is better' were actually 100% definitive - there would be a bunch of results proving it.

but are there any numbers to go with that, or just a subjective observation of how it looks?

Yes there are studies. And those dummies they use in car crashes give researchers a lot more information, then just them being "looked at".

Here's a few I found:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/childpas.htm

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/398

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/3/550

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv19/05-0330-O.pdf

 

[luckylady131]

Thanks, I think I've seen that one. I'm looking for studies done with actual accidents, not dummies. If anyone knows of one - point me to it.

I think it would be quite difficult to have a study like this. There are too many uncontrollable factors. In a study you have to be able to compare the test group to a control group. There couldn't be a control group in this scenario.

Did the parents truly have a proper install of the seat in the car?

Was the child truly strapped into the car seat correctly?

What was the actual speed the car was going when the crash occured?

Questions like this cannot be answered after the crash happens. Therefore, you cannot have a TRUE scientific study done via this method.

 

[waltskids]

Because children under the age of 4 years old are safer riding rear facing that forward facing. I don't know many 4 year olds that weigh less that 30 pounds. Also, many of the car seats that only rear face to 30 pounds are rather small in shell height, and can be outgrown before a child even reaches 30 pounds.

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

ETA: Yes, if my child's seat wouldn't get her to a minimum of 3 years old rear facing, I would absolutely buy her a new car seat.

Thanks for the website. Any recommendations on a seat that extends RF past 30lbs?

 

[Erica09M]

Thanks for the website. Any recommendations on a seat that extends RF past 30lbs?

There are tons of affordable options! Practically any seat aside from the Graco Comfortsport is going to rear face higher than 30 pounds. Most rear face to 35 or 40 pounds, and one rear faces to 45 pounds. If you like Graco, check out the Graco My Ride 65. Evenflo makes a few as well: the Triumph Advance, Momentum 65, Triumph 65, Symphony 65. Safety1st makes the Complete Air. There is the Learning Curve True Fit, Britax convertibles, the Sunshine Kids Radian... just to name a few. It would probably be easier for you to let me know what price range you'd like to stay within, and I can help you narrow it down from there.

Feel free to PM me as well, if you wish

 

[MSSANDRA]

Anyone know if any states require RF past a year old??? Laws tend to produce compliance.

 

[Erica09M]

Anyone know if any states require RF past a year old??? Laws tend to produce compliance.

Unfortunately no Crossing my fingers for the future!

 

[jodifla]

Unfortunately no Crossing my fingers for the future!

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't need the U.S. government micromanaging my parenting.

 

[MSSANDRA]

Unfortunately no Crossing my fingers for the future!

I agree and am sure at some point the rules for infants will change as has car seat laws over the years. When DS was little the law was a safety seat, which included backless boosters, under 40 lbs or 4 years and then a seat belt. Our current law is 8 years or 80lbs so of course it has gotten better. I was at a workshop about a year ago and the comment was made the reason the age one and 20 lbs was still the current law was the higher weight seats were mainly in the upper end price range and not available to all. That of course is changing so may the law!

 

[~Kristina~]

NO THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't need the U.S. government micromanaging my parenting.

This is the only comment of yours I agree with you about!

 

[tlbwriter]

I remember reading about studies that showed that children in countries where children routinely RF to age 3 or more (such as Sweden) were more likely to survive a crash than in countries like the U.S. where that is less common, but I don't have anything at hand right now.

 

[mrsr2ro]

What I think of every time this topic comes up is that if a parent wants to protect their children the most they should not even take them in a car anywhere! Because you know there are proven studies that kids die in car accidents. Oh but I'm being too extreme. So if you must drive then you should only buy cars that have tethers since that has been proven safer. And you should only plan to have one child so they can be in the safest spot - the center (w/ said tether). If you have a second or more you are compromising their safety since one will have to be on the window seat and thus at a higher risk. And oh yes, make sure you do NOT even think about driving with them on Friday or Saturday nights between the hours of 10pm and 1am because that is statsitically when all the drunk driving accidnents occur.

Yes I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but really -- there are infinite decisions we make as parents that may or may not be THE end all be all safest/best/most protected. It doesn't make us lazy or bad parents. I think many parents get defensive when this is implied - whether intentional or not. Parents want to do the best for their children but we ALL make compromises sometimes because face it, you can't be perfect or the best every minute of the day. If you are - wow - really?

 

[tlbwriter]

No one can be perfect all the time, but why take it to the other extreme - to never try to do better? No, RFing doesn't work for everyone, just like BFing doesn't work for everyone. Does that mean people who choose to do it shouldn't be allowed talk about it?

 

[tlbwriter]

Another study, cited at Carseatsite.com:

Rear-facing provides a superb way to travel for infants and toddlers. Statistically, it reduces the risk of death by 71%. In an article 1 published in Injury Prevention in December 2007, lead author Basem Y. Henary et al found that forward-facing children under the age of 2, especially those in side impacts, were 75% more likely to be injured. Why? It's because of the way the rear-facing car seat protects a child. It cradles the head, neck, and back.

1 Henary, B., et al. "Car Safety Seats for Children: Rear Facing for Best Protection." Injury Prevention 13 (2007): 398-402.

 

[sbell111]

We switched Sarah to a forward facing seat when she was a little over one year old. I am very glad that we chose to do this as she is much more comfortable in this orientation and her disposition while in the car has improved dramatically.

 

[Bren's Mom]

Would any of you invest in another seat to keep child rear facing past 30lbs? (which for our DD may be quite a long time from now lol). DS is in Graco Nautilus which is only a forward facing seat.

I also would love to see more statistics concerning accidents of forward vs rear facing in older children.

To answer your first question; it would depend on the age of the child when they were reaching 30lbs. If it was 2 or under, ABSOLUTELY. If it was between 2 and 3, most likely. If it was 3 or over, probably not.

To address the second part, yes, there have been studies. This study was done of crashes with passengers ages 0-23 months that occurred between 1988 and 2003. It showed that "Children in F(orward)F(acing)C(ar)S(seats)s were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in R(ear)F(acing)C(ar)S(eats)s in all crash types":

http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger_safety/certified-tech/rear-facing2.pdf

Because up until a few years ago there were very, very few seats sold in the US that would fit a child over the age of 2 rear-facing, there was not enough data for children over 2.

However, if you read through carefully you'll see there have been studies done in Sweden where children are routinely rear-faced to age 4 and above. And those studies all show an increase in safety for the rear-facing children.

This is an older study, which can help someone understand crash forces and what happens in a crash. If you scroll to page 6 you'll see the difference is very marked between a child in a convertible seat rear-facing in a front impact and one forward-facing. I find that most parents who see this image of any similar one are VERY receptive to rear-facing to the weight limit of their convertible seat which is the current recommendation. It's startling.

http://www.umtri.umich.edu/content/rr31_3.pdf

I also wanted to comment on laws. Laws are often way behind best practice recommendations. And it is absolutely untrue that laws produce compliance. Some states are working on updating their statutes, but for various reasons it's likely to be a while before we see any changes.

Coleen
CPST