New car seat guidelines from the AAp

[justhat]

BINGO! I think you just proved the point we are trying to make. Research needs to be done because there aren't any reports on it. You can't prove a null hypothesis.

But why aren't there reports? Possibly because there are no injuries. Like I said, I know my ped would and I would hope that others would want to prevent future injuries as well.

 

[justhat]

Link to an article written by a pediatrician regarding the cramped leg issue. http://www.parenting.com/article/rear-facing-car-seat-guidelines?page=0,1


There are some other answers to FAQ in there too on the other pages.

 

[MistressMerryweather]

Link to an article written by a pediatrician regarding the cramped leg issue. http://www.parenting.com/article/rear-facing-car-seat-guidelines?page=0,1


There are some other answers to FAQ in there too on the other pages.

Great article.

 

[tiggger1]

I am the poster who dd had the leg cramps when rear facing. we never had a problem with her in the car until about 10 1/2 months. which is when her legs started to touch the seat and she had to bend them or hang them over to fit. At first she would just cry but then she would really freak out, so bad that I took her to the ped because we thought she was sick. both her ears and throat were fine, so they told me it was probably just gas and gave me gas drops. The next day we drove to a friends house and the same screaming happened. I called the ped again and they said to keep an eye on her and if it happened again dont stop to just drive her over. The ped met us outside and that's when he noticed her legs were straight out. I had thought it was because of the ped, not that it was a leg cramp. He sent us to the Children's Hospital. They did all kinds of tests.. all came back fine. He then asked me if she was still rear facing, I told him yes because she was still under 1. he told me that it some kids legs and backs cannot take the stress of being in that position. He told us to try her FF and see if she still had the cramps. We turned her around on the way home and there was no cramps. I still wasn't sure that was what it was so I turned her RR again. Within minutes she was screaming. ( and it wasn't a im pissed off cry, it was a hurt cry) so I called my ped and told me to keep her ff. She stopped having leg cramps but now at 7 she is complaining about her legs constantly falling asleep in the car. Not sure if it is related or not but her ped is looking into it.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Link to an article written by a pediatrician regarding the cramped leg issue. http://www.parenting.com/article/rear-facing-car-seat-guidelines?page=0,1


There are some other answers to FAQ in there too on the other pages.

Good article, but I'd expect all of those things to be said by someone who dubs herself, "The Car Seat Lady."

I still believe there is too little evidence to make a completely determining factor, because there are way too many variables involved. And, while Sweden is often cited for being the "go to" for car seat information, it is important to remember that RF in Sweden until 3 or 4 is not a law, but a recommendation, and, while it seems to be the norm there, it is still not mandatory.

 

[Bren's Mom]

When a child is sitting FF it is not their knees that bear their weight because they are sitting down. I have seen children come into my hospital with broken legs due to being in a car accident while rear facing. They appeared tall and I remember being surprised they were still rear facing. I do not know the specifics of the accident and that's why I am interested in seeing more research. Children with their legs constantly dangling over the sides of the carseats could also lead to hip issues. So, no, I do not feel there was doctor error in the case the PP mentioned. BTW, there haven't been any documented reports of people getting radiation from the scanners yet people still won't go through those due to too much radiation.

Assuming that this is accurate, if an accident was severe enough to break a child's legs you have to consider what other body parts might have been injured by being forward-facing. Specifically, their neck or spine.

I am the poster who dd had the leg cramps when rear facing. we never had a problem with her in the car until about 10 1/2 months. which is when her legs started to touch the seat and she had to bend them or hang them over to fit. At first she would just cry but then she would really freak out, so bad that I took her to the ped because we thought she was sick. both her ears and throat were fine, so they told me it was probably just gas and gave me gas drops. The next day we drove to a friends house and the same screaming happened. I called the ped again and they said to keep an eye on her and if it happened again dont stop to just drive her over. The ped met us outside and that's when he noticed her legs were straight out. I had thought it was because of the ped, not that it was a leg cramp. He sent us to the Children's Hospital. They did all kinds of tests.. all came back fine. He then asked me if she was still rear facing, I told him yes because she was still under 1. he told me that it some kids legs and backs cannot take the stress of being in that position. He told us to try her FF and see if she still had the cramps. We turned her around on the way home and there was no cramps. I still wasn't sure that was what it was so I turned her RR again. Within minutes she was screaming. ( and it wasn't a im pissed off cry, it was a hurt cry) so I called my ped and told me to keep her ff. She stopped having leg cramps but now at 7 she is complaining about her legs constantly falling asleep in the car. Not sure if it is related or not but her ped is looking into it.

My take, as an experienced CPST, is that a change of car seat to one with a longer seat base for more leg room would have been the FIRST thing I would have suggested. Because the risks of turning are so great. I think your pediatrician fell short here.

Good article, but I'd expect all of those things to be said by someone who dubs herself, "The Car Seat Lady."

I still believe there is too little evidence to make a completely determining factor, because there are way too many variables involved. And, while Sweden is often cited for being the "go to" for car seat information, it is important to remember that RF in Sweden until 3 or 4 is not a law, but a recommendation, and, while it seems to be the norm there, it is still not mandatory.

The fact that she is an expert on child passenger safety doesn't negate the fact that she's a legitimate pediatrician.

And I'm not sure I get your last sentence...rear-facing past the age of 1 and 20lbs isn't mandatory HERE either.

 

[rchristiansen]

Link to an article written by a pediatrician regarding the cramped leg issue. http://www.parenting.com/article/rear-facing-car-seat-guidelines?page=0,1


There are some other answers to FAQ in there too on the other pages.

This is equivalent to a blog post or comments on this thread. Hardly an academic journal with statistical research.

 

[ccgirl]

I am not debating whether rear or FF is safest as it depends on the direction of the crash. What I am commenting on is that parents will now just have their child rear safing because that is what the AAP suggests. The AAP guidelines go on to say to follow the car seat guidelines as well. It is just as dangerous to have your child RF when they are too big for that according to the carseat. The media is not telling the whole story. Big shocker! They keep stating the age 2 thing but leave out the rest of the guideline regarding size of the child as compared to the car seat guidelines as well.

A larger excerpt from the guidelines is below.

On March 21 2011, the AAP updated their recommendations in a Policy Statement in the journal Pediatrics, specifying that children remain rear-facing until they are too tall or too heavy for their convertible car seat--until at least age 2, longer if possible.

 

[Bren's Mom]

I am not debating whether rear or FF is safest as it depends on the direction of the crash. What I am commenting on is that parents will now just have their child rear safing because that is what the AAP suggests. The AAP guidelines go on to say to follow the car seat guidelines as well. It is just as dangerous to have your child RF when they are too big for that according to the carseat. The media is not telling the whole story. Big shocker! They keep stating the age 2 thing but leave out the rest of the guideline regarding size of the child as compared to the car seat guidelines as well.

A larger excerpt from the guidelines is below.

On March 21 2011, the AAP updated their recommendations in a Policy Statement in the journal Pediatrics, specifying that children remain rear-facing until they are too tall or too heavy for their convertible car seat--until at least age 2, longer if possible.

You're absolutely right.

And the AAP wasn't the only organization to update their car seat recommendations, NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) was as well.

Their recomendations, I think, are worded even better than the AAPs:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/ChildSafety/step2

"Keep your 1 to 3 year old children in a REAR-FACING car seat for as long as possible. It's the best way to keep them safe. They should remain in a rear-facing car seat until they reach the top height or weight limit allowed by your car seat's manufacturer."

 

[justhat]

This is equivalent to a blog post or comments on this thread. Hardly an academic journal with statistical research.

So why is this physician's information crap, but the physician whose only solution to a 10 month old's leg cramps to turn her FF is correct?


I agree that the ped should have suggested either a different carseat or possibly trying the seat in a different position in the car. Some of the seats in my car have different upright angles, so that could have given the child more room too. I feel like there had to be something else going on though, cause if my kids are uncomfortable in a certain position, they adjust. So if the legs touching the seatback were a problem, they'd bend or cross their legs. Since this was happening very quickly in the car, and not from extended periods of sitting in the same position, it just really doesn't seem likely that the RF position was causing cramps on its own.

 

[taximomfor4]

My state already has the 4'9" rule for booster seats (and has for several years). They also have to be at least 8 years old AND 4'9" (not one or the other, but both). I'm sure DS will be 10 before he can be out of the booster.

.

Where are you finding that law? I may be driving dd to Tennessee in the not-too-distant future. She will be 13, but definitely not 4'9". The only law I can find for TN says:
Children age four (4) through age eight (8), and measuring less than four feet nine inches (4'9") in height, must be secured in a belt-positioning booster seat system, meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards in the rear seat, if available, or according to the child safety restraint system or vehicle manufacturer's instructions. (Note: If the child is not between age four (4) and age eight (8), but is less than four feet nine inches (4'9") in height, he/she must still use a seat belt system meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards.)

I don't want to be in legal trouble, but don't want to run out and buy a booster for her just for the several hours we are in TN. Is there a more current law than the one I posted above stating she can't be in our van's adjustable seatbelt?

 

[Bren's Mom]

Children age four (4) through age eight (8), and measuring less than four feet nine inches (4'9") in height, must be secured in a belt-positioning booster seat system, meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards in the rear seat, if available, or according to the child safety restraint system or vehicle manufacturer's instructions. (Note: If the child is not between age four (4) and age eight (8), but is less than four feet nine inches (4'9") in height, he/she must still use a seat belt system meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards.)
Children age nine (9) through age twelve (12), or any child through twelve (12) years of age, measuring four feet nine inches (4'9") or more in height, must be secured in a seat belt system. It is recommended that any such child be placed in the rear seat, if available. (Note: If the child is not between age nine (9) and age twelve (12), but is four feet nine inches (4'9") or more in height, he/she must still use a seat belt system meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards.)
Children age thirteen (13) through age fifteen (15) must be secured by using a passenger restraint system, including safety belts, meeting federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you child is 13 she is legal in a seatbelt in TN.

However, regardless of her age or the law, she is safEST in a booster IF she cannot pass the 5 step test in your car.

http://www.carseat.org/Boosters/630.htm

Coleen
CPST

 

[Piecey]

Good news! There are LOTS of convertible car seats with higher limits for rear-facing. In fact, there are several that are significantly less expensive than the Britax convertibles, with high rear-facing weight limits (40lbs) and forward-facing weight limits. Nearly all convertibles on the market in the US now have AT LEAST a 35lbs rear-facing weight limit and that is more than plenty to get most kids to between the ages of 2 and 3.

I'd like to add to this overall discussion of the updated guidelines by saying that NHTSA also updated their guidelines. Their updated site is nice and clear as to what is suggested for each age range (just click on the age you want to see):

http://www.nhtsa.gov/Safety/CPS

And here is a great PDF that can be printed, if you want to share this info with anyone:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic Injury Control/Articles/Associated Files/4StepsFlyer.pdf

One thing to note about the AAP recommendations, they're saying they'd like everyone to get to AT LEAST 2 if possible. If you have a convertible seat and your child is rear-facing and has not yet met the height or weight limits of the seat they should remain rear-facing for optimum safety.

I can personnally attest that in a moderately priced car seat an average sized child CAN rear-face to the age of 3 without any problems. I owned an Evenflo Triumph Advance for my son, which at the time had a 35lbs rear-facing limit and a 50lbs forward-facing limit. He was about 50%ile for weight and 90%ile for height, and we turned him when he reached the weight limit at around age 3. That car seat at the time we bought it was $129, not a crazy expensive one. He never once complained about his legs, the Triumph Advance has lots more leg room than the old style Britax 'big' seats like the Marathon and Boulevard. And, in fact, he would complain about his legs dangling once we did turn him forward-facing.

Does this mean I judge any parent who doesn't make it to 3? Absolutely not. I have a friend whose child hit 30lbs at one year. She kept her child rear-facing for about 6 more months until he hit the 35lbs mark, and then had no choice but to turn him. She could not afford a seat with a higher than 35lbs rear-facing limit, which at the time was a very pricey $300 seat. If that same child were turning one NOW, she would have many more much less expensive options.

I would encourage any parent unsure about the new recommendations to seek the help of an experienced CPST and/or to post at car-seat.org for help. I would encourage parents to do the same if trying to choose a car seat for their child, as there are so many choices, new ones coming on the market all the time, and sadly, too much misinformation on sites like the Dis...which are GREAT for all things Disney...not so much for child passenger safety.

I'm also happy to answer questions here or via PM if anyone has any.

Coleen
CPST

I just now came back to this thread but wanted to thank you for the links.

I ended up buying (can't remember if I bought before I posted on here or not) a Britax Boulevard. Owen is already 25lbs (7months) and has fluid collections around his brain which are causing his head to grow rapidly... so I was really concerned for his safety as I know one of the biggest issues with deciding when to FF a child is their head control and Owen is still struggling a lot with that. Basically, I knew that he still needs much more time to gain adequate control of his head before I'd be comfortably FFing him and his weight just keeps going up! So I did buy the Britax because it had the highest weight for rear-facing and best crash test ratings of any I could find.

My oldest, though, did not RF as long as I plan to keep Owen RF. He had better head control so I didn't worry so much. I'm not positive but I'd say he RF'ed to 15-18months. Somewhere in there.

 

[sparklynails23]

It's kind of silly to go all out adhering to the safest standards for carseats and then to strap those kids into a sub-compact and think they're safe out there on the highway. It is all a matter of physics, and a tiny car vs a giant SUV is a danger to your child, no matter how strictly you adopt the carseat recommendations. Until that inequality is addressed in safety standards, the carseat recommendations alone have little meaning. They're just a means for car manufacturers and insurance companies to limit liability.

 

[FredinFL]

Sparklynails has an excellent point. I had a cute, Saturn Coupe when I had my girls, it not only was a pain getting them in and out of car seats, but I felt positively dwarfed by all the minivans and SUVs.

So, we go an SUV, I feel a little bit safer, just evening out the playing field.

 

[Crazy4Disney72]

My DD just turned 11 last week and she is still in a booster. She's probably about 4'8 now, weighs 70lbs. My boys were bigger and hit 4'9" while they were 10, so they were out of boosters then. I told her if she didn't want to be in the booster she no longer had to use it, I didn't want her to be teased, but she says she knows (thanks to the Fairy Godmother billboard saying the magic number is 4'9") she is safer in the booster and furthermore she enjoys having extra support when she falls asleep in the car.

My oldest was forward facing only until 9 months, that's when he was 20lbs and that was the recommendation back then. I shudder to think about that now! He was in a harnessed seat until just before he was 5, because that's when he hit the 40lb weight limit. After that he was in a booster until 10. My 13yr old was rear facing until 1 and then in 5pt harness seat until he was 6, then a booster. My DD was rear facing to 18 months and then in a 5pt harness until age 6, then her current booster.

 

[Bren's Mom]

I just now came back to this thread but wanted to thank you for the links.

I ended up buying (can't remember if I bought before I posted on here or not) a Britax Boulevard. Owen is already 25lbs (7months) and has fluid collections around his brain which are causing his head to grow rapidly... so I was really concerned for his safety as I know one of the biggest issues with deciding when to FF a child is their head control and Owen is still struggling a lot with that. Basically, I knew that he still needs much more time to gain adequate control of his head before I'd be comfortably FFing him and his weight just keeps going up! So I did buy the Britax because it had the highest weight for rear-facing and best crash test ratings of any I could find.

My oldest, though, did not RF as long as I plan to keep Owen RF. He had better head control so I didn't worry so much. I'm not positive but I'd say he RF'ed to 15-18months. Somewhere in there.

You're welcome!

I'm sorry to hear that your ds has health issues.

But in light of those, you absolutely will want to heed the recommendation to stay rear-facing as long as possible. It is NOT about 'head control'. It is about protecting their neck/spine, something rear-facing does so much better than forward-facing. And in a typical toddler their head is much larger proportionately than their body. For a child like yours, where this is much more pronounced, it's even more important to keep him rear-facing much, much longer...no matter how much 'control' he seems to have of his head.

The Britax Boulevard you purchased, if you have a new version, does rear-face to 40lbs. However, it isn't the seat with the highest rear-facing limit in the US. That would be the Sunshine Kids Radian 80 SL and their XTSL.

If I already was using the Boulevard, I'd keep it and see how my child grew. If he reaches that 40lb limit too soon (for a medically fragile child that would be before age 3 for me) then you could consider selling it and getting a Radian to keep him rear-facing longer.

If your Boulevard is the older version with a 35lbs rear-facing limit, this might become even more of an issue.