New car seat guidelines from the AAp

[justhat]

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.

This wouldn't happen as their legs won't jam against the seatback. In a crash, they would move forward, so their whole body would be cradled against the carseat, their legs flip up a bit, then would come back down. No jamming against any seatback cause the collision forces don't work that way. You can check out some youtube videos to see what happens to dummies in crashes, both RF and FF to better see what I'm trying to say cause I know I'm not too clear.

 

[justhat]

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!

You don't really believe that FF is safer, do you? Cause I have yet to see an article that states such. And I have, in fact, looked.

 

[wvjules]

You don't really believe that FF is safer, do you? Cause I have yet to see an article that states such. And I have, in fact, looked.

I believe the poster is looking for flaws in the study and statistical numbers. I don't think that means she think FF is safer.

 

[ccgirl]

This wouldn't happen as their legs won't jam against the seatback. In a crash, they would move forward, so their whole body would be cradled against the carseat, their legs flip up a bit, then would come back down. No jamming against any seatback cause the collision forces don't work that way. You can check out some youtube videos to see what happens to dummies in crashes, both RF and FF to better see what I'm trying to say cause I know I'm not too clear.

Thank you. I was picturing that if you smashed into something head on that the rear facing carseat would get pushed forward (toward the seat) and for longer children that could mean some very serious injuries that could have been avoided if they were forward facing with the harness.

 

[tigercat]

I am only 4'8 1/2" tall and am 55. It's a good thing they added the age or I would have to sit in a booster seat LOL
tigercat

 

[rchristiansen]

You don't really believe that FF is safer, do you? Cause I have yet to see an article that states such. And I have, in fact, looked.

That's not what I said - the article states that when controlling for frontal crashes, rear facing and forward facing carseats have the same results for children up to 2 years old. This study does not address the negative effects of taller children whose legs are cramped against the backseat....and there are so many other variables the study ignored that I'm excited to argue for credit, not just for argument sake. Woot.

 

[NotUrsula]

Our daughter is just so small, that the hubster and I always joke that she'll be in a booster seat until high school and we'll be using her stroller at WDW until she's in middle school (the stroller is a Graco IPO unbrella stroller that will hold a child up to 50 lbs). Our daughter is around 38 inches tall, but only weighs 32 lbs, and she just made the 32 a few months back. And, you know your child is tiny, when you celebrate things like she finally reached 30 lbs.
...

Also, I just got a bunch of free Spring/Summer clothes for her. Wanna know how. I wne tthrough last year's Spring/Summer clothes bin and found out (after trying stuff on her Sunday afternoon) that over half of the clothes still fit her. That's when you know she's tiny, a smost of my friends who have toddler/pre-schoolers let me know how lucky I am. One of my friends has a tall skinny 4 year old, who is in a girl's size 7, and will likely be in an 8 or 10 by Fall.

See now, DD3 is also 32 lbs; she's 37.5 inches tall, but she has outgrown 2T trousers, they look like capris on her. She can wear 4T shirts with no problem, though they are a wee bit big in the shoulders. She probably won't make 40 inches before she's 4, seeing as how she only has 12 weeks to do it in. (I just checked the CDC growth charts this week, she's in the 25th percentile weightwise, but the 10th for height. http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1/chart04.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set1/chart08.pdf )

The thing about growing kids is that different parts of their bodies grow at different rates, and the proportions sometimes vary. It is possible to have a shorter child with a long torso or a shorter child with a really long inseam, or even one with longer calves and shorter thighs. Now at this age that probably doesn't matter a whole lot in terms of carseat fit, but when they start to approach puberty it often does. A kid with really long upper legs is going to pass the "feet flat on the floor, butt against the seatback" test a lot sooner than a kid who carries most of his height in his torso.

 

[ccgirl]

That's not what I said - the article states that when controlling for frontal crashes, rear facing and forward facing carseats have the same results for children up to 2 years old. This study does not address the negative effects of taller children whose legs are cramped against the backseat....and there are so many other variables the study ignored that I'm excited to argue for credit, not just for argument sake. Woot.

Sounds interesting. Would you mind posting your findings? This is exactly the kind of research I am interested in.

 

[rchristiansen]

Sounds interesting. Would you mind posting your findings? This is exactly the kind of research I am interested in.

Sure, PM me and I'll send it to you when I'm done. It's due next week.

 

[justhat]

Thank you. I was picturing that if you smashed into something head on that the rear facing carseat would get pushed forward (toward the seat) and for longer children that could mean some very serious injuries that could have been avoided if they were forward facing with the harness.

Yeah, it's the opposite of what "seems" like it should happen. Everything in the car is moving forward, so when it stops suddenly, everything inside still moves forward. So with a RF seat, the carseat absorbs the child's body moving forward, but in a FF seat, the child's large head flies forward with nothing to support it.

 

[justhat]

That's not what I said - the article states that when controlling for frontal crashes, rear facing and forward facing carseats have the same results for children up to 2 years old. This study does not address the negative effects of taller children whose legs are cramped against the backseat....and there are so many other variables the study ignored that I'm excited to argue for credit, not just for argument sake. Woot.

I see what you mean, but I think that is because there are relatively few negative effects. There aren't actually any reports of broken legs from RF, but there are broken neck reports from FF. As far as doing it by car type, that would be near impossible, as then anytime people got new cars they'd possibly need new seats. So it just makes sense to go with what is safest overall and make that the guideline.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

That is why before jumping the gun and saying it is a one size fits all RF after age 1 they need to test in these positions. Now if your child (general your child by the way) is small enough to not have this issue and their entire body is inside the seat while RF of course it is the best option provided there aren't any other factors in play.

Of course they tested it.

They tested it with crash dummies, and by looking at crash statistics, and by looking at countries like Sweden where extended rear facing is the norm, and there are years of data about injuries and death per passenger mile.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Sarcasm my dear. My daughter is tiny. She's 3, and just last night as we were getting our taxes done, our tax person, who also has a daughter who just turned three (our daughter is really 3.5) was amazed that our daughter wears a 2T in pants. Her daughter wears a 5/5T (her daughter is not huge by any means as by the recent pic on her desk) and another lady at the office mentioned her 3 year old is in a 4T. Our daughter is just so small, that the hubster and I always joke that she'll be in a booster seat until high school and we'll be using her stroller at WDW until she's in middle school (the stroller is a Graco IPO unbrella stroller that will hold a child up to 50 lbs). Our daughter is around 38 inches tall, but only weighs 32 lbs, and she just made the 32 a few months back. And, you know your child is tiny, when you celebrate things like she finally reached 30 lbs.

No, honestly, I wouldn't have her in booster seat and pull up at the local high school. I'm just saying that when I do buy a booster seat for her (lookign into it). I want it to be:
1) high back
2) 5 point harness, but later can be used with the car seat belt
3) will last FORVEVER -- and knowing how little the darling girl is -- (sarcasm)will likely last her until high school (/sarcasm)

Also, I just got a bunch of free Spring/Summer clothes for her. Wanna know how. I wne tthrough last year's Spring/Summer clothes bin and found out (after trying stuff on her Sunday afternoon) that over half of the clothes still fit her. That's when you know she's tiny, a smost of my friends who have toddler/pre-schoolers let me know how lucky I am. One of my friends has a tall skinny 4 year old, who is in a girl's size 7, and will likely be in an 8 or 10 by Fall.

Yep, I chose the Frontier because I want it to be the last car seat I ever have to buy. DD is 3 1/2 and 36" and 29 lbs. DS is in a Marathon, and by the time he is 65 lbs I hope DD is big enough to wear just a seat belt, or a backless booster wouldn't be a big deal either.

 

[jodifla]

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.

Exactly. And of course elected officials are influenced by the rabid car safety fanatics, and their children can NEVER be safe enough.

My 9-year-old is still in a booster 99 percent of the time. And I make that decision as his parent....but of course there are many in the country (and on these boards) who want to take the decision away from us.

I'm not sure how car pools are supposed to work now. Every 12-year-old is supposed to drag his booster seat around with him?

And what about those of us with OLDER CARS? My car seats 8, but only has 4 shoulder belts, and two of those are in the front seat. So my car, perfect for car pooling, would be made pretty useless by these guidelines.

 

[justhat]

Exactly. And of course elected officials are influenced by the rabid car safety fanatics, and their children can NEVER be safe enough.

My 9-year-old is still in a booster 99 percent of the time. And I make that decision as his parent....but of course there are many in the country (and on these boards) who want to take the decision away from us.

I'm not sure how car pools are supposed to work now. Every 12-year-old is supposed to drag his booster seat around with him?

And what about those of us with OLDER CARS? My car seats 8, but only has 4 shoulder belts, and two of those are in the front seat. So my car, perfect for car pooling, would be made pretty useless by these guidelines.

How so? Boosters are only needed with shoulder belts. If your car doesn't have shoulder belts then no boosters needed. Problem solved!

 

[jodifla]

How so? Boosters are only needed with shoulder belts. If your car doesn't have shoulder belts then no boosters needed. Problem solved!

hmmm...so your take on this law would be that kids under 4 foot 9 would just need the lap belt in my car? Not that they couldn't ride in the car at all?

 

[justhat]

hmmm...so your take on this law would be that kids under 4 foot 9 would just need the lap belt in my car? Not that they couldn't ride in the car at all?

Yes. The law doesn't state that kids under 4'9" need to ride with a lap/shoulder belt combo, just that a booster seat is necessary, only so that the seatbelt fits them properly. A lap belt doesn't need (nor can use) a booster, so you're set.

 

[laurie31]

Yes. The law doesn't state that kids under 4'9" need to ride with a lap/shoulder belt combo, just that a booster seat is necessary, only so that the seatbelt fits them properly. A lap belt doesn't need (nor can use) a booster, so you're set.

Ack! I hope you're kidding! A person wearing a lap belt alone is classed as "unrestrained."

If anyone still has cars with lap belts only, please take them to be retrofitted. NO ONE should ride with a lap belt only!

Not unless you think being a paraplegic would be fun...

 

[Kim in TN]

Don't count on it, my nearly 10 year old isn't even 70lbs!

My 11 year old boy weighs 51 pounds. Guess he'll be in his booster seat for awhile longer...

 

[jodifla]

Ack! I hope you're kidding! A person wearing a lap belt alone is classed as "unrestrained."

If anyone still has cars with lap belts only, please take them to be retrofitted. NO ONE should ride with a lap belt only!

Not unless you think being a paraplegic would be fun...

I've checked it out...retrofitting a car like mine isn't really feasible.