New car seat guidelines from the AAp

[kt_mom]

I don't see how it is rude for me to state that "bare minimum" is not good enough for my child. It's a simple fact that I insist we go the extra mile to keep her safe. It is another simple fact that I don't understand why anyone would not go that mile for their child. If that is offensive to you, that's your deal.

Actually your kids would probably be safest at home and never in a car. Who gets to decide what is the bare minimum and what is just being over protective.

 

[Becky2005]

Soon everyone in the car will be in a carseat, and it will be recommended that only the driver face foward.

I can't say whether or not I agree unless I read why the change.

Actually that was my thought -- why not just make all the seats face backwards except for the driver's seat and front passenger (that way you can still take Driver's Ed!). It would keep everyone safer and they already do that and have been doing it for eons with some cars (anyone remember station wagons with the seat that flipped up in the back?)

 

[sbell111]

Actually your kids would probably be safest at home and never in a car. Who gets to decide what is the bare minimum and what is just being over protective.

WHile many in this thread and others would like to decide for all of us, the parent is the one who gets to decide for his/her children.

 

[monkeybug]

Actually your kids would probably be safest at home and never in a car. Who gets to decide what is the bare minimum and what is just being over protective.

In America? Our elected officials.

They decide the bare minimum for the drinking age, the speed limit, what chemicals can and can't be used to grow our food, what vaccines are required for school, what age a person can legally purchase a pack of cigarettes, the child to provider ratio in day care centers, vehicle safety standards, and so on.
There are lot's of people deciding what the bare minimum is for lot's of things, and the "bare minimum" changes constantly. It's the nature of a developing world.

There are places where no safety standard is set, and nobody is enforcing the bare minimum on anyone...but they aren't exactly utopia.

 

[sbell111]

They've done more research and unfortunately had to care for a lot more toddlers with serious injuries, so now they have data to support the fact that rear facing is indeed safer.

Another theory is that they caved to the rabid RFers.

 

[merbobear]

Just curious, do you make your child wear a helmet in the car? That would surely protect them even more and keep them as safe as possible. If you aren't doing above whats recommended, aren't you still only doing the bare minimum? If your personal goal is to keep your child as safe as possible, then whats recommended shouldn't matter, why do you need them to tell you what is the safest, surely there is more you could do on your own.

I don't think a helmet would provide3 any more protection, and in fact might interfere w/ how a child is able to sit in a car seat, as it would push their head/neck forward (not being able to put their back fully against the back of the sea). This would almost definitely interfere w/ harnessing the child in properly. I have never seen any crash test results that indicate a helmet would be beneficial in any way, have you?

I do what is recommended and NOT what is "less" because of crash test results and years of research that indicate the safest car seat solutions for children. Again, if someone wants to do less than the recommendations for whatever reason, that is their choice to make.

 

[monkeybug]

Another theory is that they caved to the rabid RFers.

It worked for Sweden.

 

[merbobear]

Actually your kids would probably be safest at home and never in a car. Who gets to decide what is the bare minimum and what is just being over protective.

Keeping a child indoors all the time and never leaving the house is probably not the healthiest option, nor is it reasonable. Putting a child in the safest car seat available for their age and size is reasonable and doesn't even take any more effort than using a seat that's inappropriate for their age.

Like I said, some people choose to use seats that are less safe for their child, I do not.

 

[merbobear]

WHile many in this thread and others would like to decide for all of us, the parent is the one who gets to decide for his/her children.

Actually the government decides what the bare minimum is. You, as a parent, decide whether you will accept bare minimum as enough or if you will choose to exceed it.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Actually the government decides what the bare minimum is. You, as a parent, decide whether you will accept bare minimum as enough or if you will choose to exceed it.

You're right about that, and these new "guidelines" are only going to set the table for the government to further intrude on my decision making process. All because someone out there thinks there is a one-size-fits-all solution to children in car seats. Kids are all different shapes and sizes. Kids have all sorts of intricacies concerning developmental issues. The decision should be left up to the individual parents with little, to no, government interference.

 

[kt_mom]

You're right about that, and these new "guidelines" are only going to set the table for the government to further intrude on my decision making process. All because someone out there thinks there is a one-size-fits-all solution to children in car seats. Kids are all different shapes and sizes. Kids have all sorts of intricacies concerning developmental issues. The decision should be left up to the individual parents with little, to no, government interference.

This exactly! It should be up to the parent to decide for their children.

 

[kt_mom]

WHile many in this thread and others would like to decide for all of us, the parent is the one who gets to decide for his/her children.

In a perfect world. Unfortunately we are loosing that right faster and faster every day.

 

[ccgirl]

Would the direction of the car accident (front end vs/ rear end) have any affect on whether it is more beneficial for a child to be front facing or rear facing? Hopint those with a little more physics knowledge can chime in.

As far as the booster, seatbelts vary from vehicle to vehicle. It is important to know how the seatbelt for your vehicle fits. Using booster may actually decrease the effectiveness of a seatbelt if it raises you up too high.

 

[monkeybug]

In a perfect world.

There are plenty of places in the world where government does not intervene in a parents right to decide what is safe and what's not for their children. I doubt many would classify those places as perfect though...

 

[Gina]

(anyone remember station wagons with the seat that flipped up in the back?)

The station wagon mosh pit!! My brother and I loved sitting back there.

My son HATED facing backward and not being able to see, and I hated not being able to see his face and carry on a "conversation" with him in the car. Luckily he was big, and I think I turned him around when he was about 1 1/2. I could have maybe pushed it to 2, 2 1/2, but that would have been it. He was in a regular no-back booster until about 4 or 5. (Can't really remember)

He's 15 now and 5'9" -- I'm only 5'. I can't wait to see the look on his face when I tell him later that he "should have" been in a booster until he was like 11 or 12. His head would have gone through the roof of my little Echo way before that if he had been in a booster seat.

As others have said, there just comes a point where you have the find the balance between safety and reasonable action. If they're not safe enough facing forward, then car manufacturers need to address how to remedy that. Telling them they have to stare at the backseat and fold their legs up like a Transformer is not a reasonable solution.

 

[monkeybug]

The station wagon mosh pit!! My brother and I loved sitting back there.


As others have said, there just comes a point where you have the find the balance between safety and reasonable action. If they're not safe enough facing forward, then car manufacturers need to address how to remedy that. Telling them they have to stare at the backseat and fold their legs up like a Transformer is not a reasonable solution.

I totally agree that car manufacturers need to address a solution for smaller people (including adults) so that they can be both safe and comfortable!

I disagree that, in the mean time, having a child in a rear facing carseat is unreasonable. Swedish children have been rear facing for years (common place for even 4 year olds) and they enjoy the lowest child vehicle fatalities in the world.

 

[Bren's Mom]

Would the direction of the car accident (front end vs/ rear end) have any affect on whether it is more beneficial for a child to be front facing or rear facing? Hopint those with a little more physics knowledge can chime in.

Yes, the type of accident and the direction of the car seat does have an effect.

Front and frontal offset crashes make up the majority of accidents. These crashes are generally at higher speeds than rear-end collisions. In frontal or frontal offset crashes, children are safer rear-facing.

Side impact collisions come next. Children are safer rear-facing in these types of accidents.

Rear-end collisions at speeds high enough to cause injury, are much fewer than the other types of crashes. In low speed rear-end accidents, children are still protected rear-facing. In a high speed rear-end accident, the benefits of rear-facing do decrease although just by being safely restrained in a 5 point harnessed car seat they are more protected than someone in a seat belt.

So the recommendations are based on statistics. If we could predict what kind of accident we would be in with certainty, then we could choose the car seat direction for each trip. But we can't, so we have to go with the statistics. The chances of front, frontal offset or side impact crashes are so much greater than a high impact rear-end collision, so it is recommended we keep children rear-facing as long as possible.

Coleen
CPST

 

[justhat]

I must just be very lucky because neither of my older 2 complained once about being rearfacing until 2yo. In fact, we initially turned my son FF at 21 months because we thought he'd want to watch a movie on a long drive and he asked us to switch it back! He hated how his toys fell to the ground FF and he loved looking out of the back window when he was RF (we have an SUV, and he was RF in the center, so he had a perfect view!). So we turned him FF and kept him that way for another 6 months, when, again, we turned him to watch a movie on a long car trip. He did ask me to switch the seat back again, but I didn't feel like doing it at the time and he seemed to forget about it so we left him FF.

And regarding younger siblings, that hasn't been an issue for us either. My above mentioned son is my 2nd child and he was RF sitting directly next to his FF older sister, and like I said, he preferred RF. My 3rd is 14 months tomorrow and still RF while her older brother and sister are FF. She actually seems to enjoy RF as well, probably because her sister in the 3rd row is right in her line of sight (and she LOVES her). And her brother sits across the aisle in the 2nd row (the baby is behind me in the 2nd row), so she can see him too and he can hand her stuff.

Regarding kids dying to get out of boosters, again, just lucky that isn't my family. My 7yo is 50" and 52lbs and still harnessed in her Britax Frontier85, AT HER REQUEST! We were out of town last week so we use a backless booster when flying (not on the plane, just that it's easier to carry around than the Frontier). I was putting the Frontier back in my car on Sunday and asked her if she wanted me to leave the harness straps in, or take them out so she can use it as a booster and she said "Leave the straps in. I like the seat as it is." She made the same choice last summer, at 6.5yo, when I got a new car and asked her how she wanted it installed.

We send her with the backless booster to friend's houses, but we have had friends in our car and they have seen her seat and never said a word. Another 7yo in her class sits in the same Frontier85, also still harnessed, so it really isn't that strange. When she was 5yo, she did have 1 little boy ask her why she still sits in a carseat and she told him, "This kind of seat is safer than a booster seat and I want to be safe." So in her case, if she still needs a booster past 9yo (which I don't *think* she would, as she should be about 57" then, based on her growth curve), I don't think she'll object.

 

[rchristiansen]

=
Front and frontal offset crashes make up the majority of accidents. These crashes are generally at higher speeds than rear-end collisions. In frontal or frontal offset crashes, children are safer rear-facing.

Side impact collisions come next. Children are safer rear-facing in these types of accidents.

....

So the recommendations are based on statistics. If we could predict what kind of accident we would be in with certainty, then we could choose the car seat direction for each trip. But we can't, so we have to go with the statistics. The chances of front, frontal offset or side impact crashes are so much greater than a high impact rear-end collision, so it is recommended we keep children rear-facing as long as possible.

Coleen
CPST

Actually the statistics report something different:

From the abstract:
"Children in FFCSs were significantly more likely to be seriously injured than children restrained in RFCSs in all crash types (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.20). When considering frontal crashes alone, children in FFCSs were more likely to be seriously injured (OR = 1.23), although this finding was not statistically significant (95% CI 0.95 to 1.59). In side crashes, however, children in FFCSs were much more likely to be injured (OR = 5.53, 95% CI 3.74 to 8.18). When 1 year olds were analyzed separately, these children were also more likely to be seriously injured when restrained in FFCSs (OR = 5.32, 95% CI 3.43 to 8.24). Effectiveness estimates for RFCSs (93%) were found to be 15% higher than those for FFCSs (78%)."


Henary B, Sherwood C, Crandall J, et al. Car safety seats for children: rear facing for best protection. Inj Prev. 2007;13(6):398–402

So it would seem to me that when calculating the odds of the type of crash and comparing it against the cost of continually injuring your child by cramping their legs, rear facing your preschooler may not be the best choice.


I'm also happy to report that, just this afternoon, my statistics instructor has approved this article for my assignment next week. She said it was a perfect article - I get to poke all sorts of holes in their methodology and argue the flaws for class credit!

 

[ccgirl]

So it would seem to me that when calculating the odds of the type of crash and comparing it against the cost of continually injuring your child by cramping their legs, rear facing your preschooler may not be the best choice.


I'm also happy to report that, just this afternoon, my statistics instructor has approved this article for my assignment next week. She said it was a perfect article - I get to poke all sorts of holes in their methodology and argue the flaws for class credit!

Thanks. This is what I was trying to figure out. ALso, if the child is long and rear facing, I would "think" (could be wrong) that they could break their back by jamming their legs against the seat when they may have been fine forward facing. I would be interested in more statistics.

For the record, I am not against safety, my DD8 is still in a booster as are most of her 3rd grade classmates.