32 pounds at 21 months ... - Page 2

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by petra_william

id say she is what she is.... she is 1.

recommendations are to keep kids rf till they are at LEAST 2 and 30 lbs is that not so?

No, the recommendation is to keep the child rear facing in a convertible for as long as she/he fits, with the recent testing showing that a child under 24 months in a forward facing seat is FIVE HUNDRED PER CENT more likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury, AND with the knowledge since the 60s that children are best served in rear facing convertibles until around the fourth birthday.

The study showing 500% safety increased was not conducted on children over 2, as the real life data just isn't there yet. There is no reason to think that the numbers go from 500 to 0 at 24 months.

It's only been in the last six months that the US has produced multiple convertibles capable of getting most kids to the fourth birthday.

In spirt, though, you were right There is never a scenario where a forward facing 1 year old is ok.

[Selesai]

I agree with North of 60.

And yes, I know most people on this board will tell me to put my daughter RF but I'm not concerned about it, and I don't think that it is as completely unsafe as is insinuated.

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

There is MUCH bigger difference between a 21 month old and a 12 month old, than there is a 15 year old who's 3 months away from 16 and a 16 year old.

Calling the original poster's child a 1 year old when she is almost 2 is for dramatic effect, because it sounds way more neglectful when it's a 1 year old forward facing instead of a 2 year old.

Not that I disagree with the fact that an ALMOST TWO YEAR OLD should still be rear facing, even at 31 pounds, but I'm not going to regress her age to make her sound younger for dramatic effect. She is what she is - almost 2.

I think your angst is misplaced.

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by Selesai

I agree with North of 60.

And yes, I know most people on this board will tell me to put my daughter RF but I'm not concerned about it, and I don't think that it is as completely unsafe as is insinuated.

You would be wrong. It's not insinuated. It's researched, confirmable, verifiable fact. You can choose to put your child at risk, but it doesn't mean she is not dangerously, possibly lethally at risk, just because you wish it were so.

[alegna]

I believe that the current AAP suggestion is rf until AT LEAST 2yrs old. AND to the limits of their seat...

but I could be remembering wrong.

-Angela

[Maedze]

No, that is not the current AAP recommendation. The recommendation in full, since 2002 has been

1. A bare minimum of 1 year and 20 pounds (reflective of the fact that child restraints really didn't go beyond that)
2. After one and 20, to the limit of the convertible
3. Child restraint manufacturers need to develop seats that will keep all children rear facing to the fourth birthday



In February of this year, they published a newsletter encouraging pediatricians to tell their parents that the old rule of 1 and 20 was outdated, and that 2 years was a better safety goal. They have not revised the official recommendation above, but they are currently evaluating changing the language.

[traceface]

Originally Posted by MariesMama

How much more height does the Radian have than the Marathon anyway.

Don't know the exact numbers but the Radian does have significantly more height. My six year old (tall) can still fit in the Radian, height-wise (forward-facing, of course)

I think you'd get years more with a Radian and could just turn it around when the time comes.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by Maedze

I'm sure you didn't mean to be sarcastic. It must have been an accident.

Completely. My bad!

A 21 month old is 1 year old. A child under two does not belong in a forward facing seat. There is no wiggle room there.

I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Maedze

I think your angst is misplaced.

Ironic...

[lonegirl]

[QUOTE=North_Of_60;14634946]

I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.

QUOTE]

:

I turned Tyr at 18months and he became a very happy traveller (and mommy moved back to the front). He was a good, sturdy, strong and tall boy...and was looking very crushed RF....yes...I know his legs technically mean nothing in his RF or FF. Had he been happy and able to stretch out his legs I may have kept him RF longer but I was and am happy with my decision I made.
I am not disagreeing that RF is safer...I believe it is...we should all be able to RF and have 5pt harnesses

[Maedze]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

Completely. My bad!



I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.



Ironic...

Ok, let me rephrase. You're incorrectly attributing shaming intentions to me. I did not say, "one year old" to shame anyone. I said one year old because the child is a one year old. We're not talking about shoe sizes. We're talking about child restraints.

I'm interested in presenting factual material. Factual material doesn't change based on parental convenience or perception.

It really doesn't matter if the child is 'just one' or 'almost two' in terms of child restraint safety, because the child still needs to be rear facing.

If I'm talking about behavioral development, I'll frequently specify 'what kind' of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 year old my child is...because it's relevant there. It's not relevant here.

[Maedze]

[QUOTE=lonegirl;14635258]

Originally Posted by North_Of_60

I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.

QUOTE]

:

I turned Tyr at 18months and he became a very happy traveller (and mommy moved back to the front). He was a good, sturdy, strong and tall boy...and was looking very crushed RF....yes...I know his legs technically mean nothing in his RF or FF. Had he been happy and able to stretch out his legs I may have kept him RF longer but I was and am happy with my decision I made.
I am not disagreeing that RF is safer...I believe it is...we should all be able to RF and have 5pt harnesses

Your 'happiness' with your decision does not negate the fact that it was also a poor decision, an inadvisable decision and potentially a deadly decision.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by Maedze

Ok, let me rephrase. You're incorrectly attributing shaming intentions to me.

It sure read that way. It seems that if you call an almost 2 year old a 1 year old it sounds far more negligent for her to be forward facing than if she were actually 2 (which she will be three months).

If facts and literal interpretations are so important, I would call her what she is - 21 months old. Sure, she's technically "one year old", but we all know at that age there is is a huge difference between 12 months and 21 months.

A one year old riding forward facing sounds so much "worse" than a two year old riding forward facing, and whether or not you meant to sound shameful by making that distinction in an attempt to play the "you're a bad mother" card to keep that child rear facing, you did.

The child is 21 months old. Should she be rearfacing since she is under 2? Yes. No need for generalizations, but if you're going to make them, make them according to her age (and she IS closer to 2 than 1), not according what suits your purpose.

[Maedze]

Really, I promise, you're making assumptions about my feelings here

To me, a one year old does not sound 'worse' than a two year old, because they should both be rear facing.

It's not even an argument I can wrap my head around, because I wouldn't ever forward face a child of either of those ages

[lonegirl]

[QUOTE=Maedze;14635970]

Originally Posted by lonegirl

Your 'happiness' with your decision does not negate the fact that it was also a poor decision, an inadvisable decision and potentially a deadly decision.

LOL I knew that posting here would just have me flamed!!

We were told by our doctor it was ok to turn him at 1 year (12 months) and at least 20lbs...we chose to to wait until 18 months...another 6 months bigger and stronger. I do not believe this was an inadvisable or deadly decision. We waited waaaaay longer than all our loved ones and friends kept telling us as we knew it was safer but felt fine in our decision on timing.

[Maedze]

[QUOTE=lonegirl;14636470]

Originally Posted by Maedze

LOL I knew that posting here would just have me flamed!!

We were told by our doctor it was ok to turn him at 1 year (12 months) and at least 20lbs...we chose to to wait until 18 months...another 6 months bigger and stronger. I do not believe this was an inadvisable or deadly decision. We waited waaaaay longer than all our loved ones and friends kept telling us as we knew it was safer but felt fine in our decision on timing.

Ok, this has nothing to do with message board 'flaming' or an issue of popular or unpopular opinion.

Nor does it have anything to do with your doctor's truly awful advice (which is completely against the recommendation of the AAP, btw), nor does have anything to do with what your loved ones said, nor does it have anything to do with how you FELT about it.


This is about PHYSICS. FACTS. The fact is that no matter how you 'feel' about it, it's still dangerous. Just saying "I felt fine about my decision" doesn't make it safe, and doesn't make it fine. Your child was still suddenly put from incredibly safe to FIVE HUNDRED PER CENT MORE LIKELY TO DIE OR BE SERIOUSLY INJURED because you didn't like the way his legs looked.

Again. Not flaming. Facts.

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by Maedze

It's not even an argument I can wrap my head around, because I wouldn't ever forward face a child of either of those ages

Well, if you're going to round an age out, round it to the CLOSEST age, not to which one sounds more convincing was all I'm saying. But since that wasn't your angle, I'm sure you'll agree 21 months is much more accurate, and closer to two, than "one year old". You know, since you're into presenting factual material and all.

[Maedze]

Well, I feel like we're not on the same page. I said one...because I said one. I didn't round it out. The child is one. One plus how many months is not relevant to the discussion in any way, shape or form. There was no ulterior motive.


I'm not sure I understand why you're angry. If there's a technical point that I need to clarify, please let me know. Otherwise....???

[Latte Mama]

[QUOTE=lonegirl;14636470]

Originally Posted by Maedze

LOL I knew that posting here would just have me flamed!!

We were told by our doctor it was ok to turn him at 1 year (12 months) and at least 20lbs...we chose to to wait until 18 months...another 6 months bigger and stronger. I do not believe this was an inadvisable or deadly decision. We waited waaaaay longer than all our loved ones and friends kept telling us as we knew it was safer but felt fine in our decision on timing.

Respectfully, what makes your doctor an expert in car seat safety? Did the doc explain that RF is 5x safer and that you *should* wait much longer or just go ahead and say at a year it's ok? I just don't understand WHY doctors say this? The research, information, and studies are so compelling for RF and very little or nothing to be gained by FF.

Your strong, sturdy boy still does not have a stable/strong enough cervical spine to safely withstand a severe impact. Is FF really worth it?

[alegna]

Originally Posted by Maedze

No, that is not the current AAP recommendation. The recommendation in full, since 2002 has been

1. A bare minimum of 1 year and 20 pounds (reflective of the fact that child restraints really didn't go beyond that)
2. After one and 20, to the limit of the convertible
3. Child restraint manufacturers need to develop seats that will keep all children rear facing to the fourth birthday



In February of this year, they published a newsletter encouraging pediatricians to tell their parents that the old rule of 1 and 20 was outdated, and that 2 years was a better safety goal. They have not revised the official recommendation above, but they are currently evaluating changing the language.

Thanks for the clarification!

-Angela

[Smithie]

"Your 'happiness' with your decision does not negate the fact that it was also a poor decision, an inadvisable decision and potentially a deadly decision."

I'm pretty sure that for some people, you could say all those same things about their decision to drive their kids around in a car AT ALL. The lady who crossed the center line going around a curve and almost hit me yesterday, for instance.

I'm glad the, um, "word on the street" is changing to "turn 'em at two!" rather than "turn 'em at one!" I'm so, so grateful for the new seats with higher RFing weight limits. But ERFing until 4 is not going to be a universal practice in America anytime soon. Parents will make the decision based on the existing safety data PLUS the experience their child is having PLUS their happiness with the quality of the RFing install in their car PLUS the ability (or lack thereof) to buy a new car PLUS the needs of any younger children who may have come along. A person who can do the RF/FF/RF "puzzle" pattern in the back of her small sedan is going to flip kid #1 when kid #3 is born.

Safety decisions have a lot of components. I wish the emphasis was more on installing/using seats and boosters correctly, rather than on extended harnessing or extended RFing or whatever the next "must-do" thing turns out to be. I seriously wonder how many parents are driving around my town with a RFing Britax they think is soooooo safe that is going to pitch their kid through the side window because it's not installed correctly.