Rear facing is the SAFEST way to travel... Pass it on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DVfqFhseo&feature=related
The youtube video link above, "The Importance of Rear-facing", highlights some important information that made me commit to rear-facing for as long as possible. I even wish us grown-ups had car seats that had the option to lock into rear-facing position!
My grandson will soon have his 3rd birthday and is rear facing. He is a little guy, only 24 pounds. We are going to get one of the extended rear facing car seats and keep him rear facing as long as possible. I've been in accidents with kids in car seats and it is much better to buy a car seat so the child can rear face until 35-40 pounds than to forward face because the child outgrew a baby car seat at around 22 pounds. You would never want to be in an accident and have your child injured or killed because they were forward facing when they could have been rear facing.
I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!
I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!
Why don't you provide everyone with links to that research. I am dying to see it.
I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!
The research I've seen has much higher numbers so I'd love to see that data. Please link.
Incidentally, most children sit in a cross-legged or bent-legged position regardless of how much room they have. When turned FF, my DD bends her legs up inside the carseat just like when she is RF. I do understand that carsick kids can sometimes be a reason to turn, but everything I've seen shows that it is MUCH safer through 2 (and no data after 2).
We switched from the infant seat to a convertible at 6 months, and we turned forward facing when she hit 1 year and 20 lbs. I know that recommendation is rear facing till 40 lbs and 2 years, but I figured a screaming baby in the back is far more dangerous than she being happy forward facing.
totally agree. glad you brought up the issue with the height and being rear faced. when they get tall to the point that there is no more leg room being rear faced, it's time to turn around. I also think that as parents, we should put ourselves in out kids' shoes and think of how we'd feel if we were in the exact same position. no view, car sick and no leg room. no wonder they scream!
to each her own i guess. i feel screaming baby is better than a dead or permanently disabled baby.
totally agree. glad you brought up the issue with the height and being rear faced. when they get tall to the point that there is no more leg room being rear faced, it's time to turn around. I also think that as parents, we should put ourselves in out kids' shoes and think of how we'd feel if we were in the exact same position. no view, car sick and no leg room. no wonder they scream!
No view: This one always mystifies me. Do people not have rear windows in their cars? When she was RF in a car, DD had a panoramic view of the rear and side windows. Now she's in a van and can't see as much out the rear, but she can see more than she can when she's FF and gets a spectacular view of the back of my seat. No matter which way she's facing or in which car, I hear an endless stream of what she sees, so I'm quite aware of her exact view. She also yells at me if I make a "wrong turn" ie turn towards home instead of, say, the park where she wants to play.
car sick: Definitely something I'd take into consideration, if it were to affect one of my kids. However many, many children do not feel carsick while rear-facing. Including my own. RF is much safer than FF, so I'd try other solutions first, but if the motion sickness was severe enough and nothing else worked, yeah, I'd turn a kid who I'd otherwise want rear-facing.
no leg room: Most kids don't seem to care about this one either. Ever seen the weird and awkward positions kids sit, play, and sleep in? They are more flexible than us. If I were to squat to play with a bug for two hours straight, I wouldn't be able to walk for a week. My DD does this all the time. My son just fell asleep with his head resting on his leg. I don't bend that way. I have pics of myself as an older child sleeping in my own lap on a bus. I don't bend that way anymore. Also, in my van, DD is in a captain's chair which I have reclined for her. When she puts her legs up on the reclined seatback it's really not that different from an adult's recliner.
We switched from the infant seat to a convertible at 6 months, and we turned forward facing when she hit 1 year and 20 lbs. I know that recommendation is rear facing till 40 lbs and 2 years, but I figured a screaming baby in the back is far more dangerous than she being happy forward facing.
I always wonder how much more likely you are to get in an accident with a screaming kid. I know for me it's incredibly distracting to have someone shrieking in the back.
I'm glad to see a few people chimed in on screaming babies. In my experience when DD screams in the seat it's enough to make me want to drive off the road. My brain shuts down, I can't make decisions, I feel frantic. I thought she'd outgrow it but it's still miserable for both of us. But she's a peanut so I don't know when we'll reach the turn around markers. Not soon enough...I feel like I'm a safer driver and can make smarter decisions if my child isn't frantically wailing at the top of her lungs.
On a side note, does anyone recommend a carseat that rides higher? We have a subaru forester and it seems like her view is the car ceiling and the sky. I don't think she gets much out of window view being tilted back so far and to get the seat tight enough it's pushed so deep into the seat padding. Also, it doesn't fit behind the driver's seat...I'd get a new car seat if the person sitting up front didn't have their knees in the glove box and my child didn't see the car seat and cry immediately sometimes. It breaks my heart. We have a First Years True Fit.
Re: long legs, my DS is long legged but never once complained about legroom while RF. When FF on the other hand, he frequently complains about his legs hanging from his seat and not touching the floor.
Ultimately, when it comes to car seats or any other parenting issue, I think each of us has to make the best judgement that we can, weighing out the benefits and disadvantages to decide what is right for our own children and for ourselves, depending on the unique circumstances we find ourselves in. The research definitely points towards RF as safer, and it's really important to promote that, but I don't think we should judge parents who decide that FF works best for their families. We're all just trying to do the best we can for our children and to survive parenthood! 
It sounds like you didn't understand what you read. The 500% off quoted statistic covers children birth through 23 months. 75% covers children 12-23 months. Furthermore, the rate of return skyrockets when you're discussing side impact accidents.
I'm not sure if you simply misunderstood what you read, or you were so strongly opposed to the idea that you felt comfortable deliberately misinterpreting it, but representing an untruth as fact is pretty poor form.
Also should note: the rate of increased safety is not affected by having children carrying on in the back seat. The "Distracted Driving" argument is a non-starter, otherwise, people in Sweden would be crashing into trees left and right and little Swedish children would be getting killed by the dozen.
I've read all the actual research (not emotional hyperbole) I have been able to find on this issue. The research says that a child between 1 and 2 is 15% safer rear-facing. A child between birth and 1 is much, MUCH safer rear-facing, and the higher percentages you see applied to rear-facing till 2 usually come from failing to differentiate between birth to 1 year-olds and 1-2 year-olds. My kids get carsick. So do I. Riding backwards when you are prone to carsickness is totally miserable--it is asking your kid to be nauseous every time they ride in the car, and possibly, to throw up more often on car rides (just the wrong combination of curvy road, warm temps, and too recent a meal, can still mean a kid that throws up, even front-facing, but it's much more rare for our kids). To me, a 15% safety gain is simply not worth requiring my kids to feel ill every time we need to go somewhere! (Aside from the fact that rear-facing, once the legs are longer than the car seat, is a totally un-physiological position that no one spends more than a few minutes in under normal circumstances, and our car rides are usually longer than a few minutes.) I turn the kids around when they are 1 year and 20 pounds. Doing so for my kids means a child who instantly enjoys car rides a lot more (probably through not being nauseous!), and a child who is content ALWAYS means a safer, less-distracted, driver behind the wheel!
In addition, if I have to, I can force myself to focus on driving. I can't force my toddler to have a stronger spinal cord.
Also should note: the rate of increased safety is not affected by having children carrying on in the back seat. The "Distracted Driving" argument is a non-starter, otherwise, people in Sweden would be crashing into trees left and right and little Swedish children would be getting killed by the dozen.
How do you figure? Any links to studies done with screaming kids in the back seat?
Because the average rate of child death in cars annually is four. In the most recent published study, of those four accidents, three of them were unsurviveable due to either fire or water, and in one, the child had been prematurely turned forward facing.
Since, with the rare exception as evidenced here, the standard in Sweden is to keep children rear facing for roughly the first 3-5 years of life, if there were concerns about distracted driving, the child death rate would reflect it. It didn't.
How do you figure? Any links to studies done with screaming kids in the back seat?
Because the average rate of child death in cars annually is four. In the most recent published study, of those four accidents, three of them were unsurviveable due to either fire or water, and in one, the child had been prematurely turned forward facing.
Since, with the rare exception as evidenced here, the standard in Sweden is to keep children rear facing for roughly the first 3-5 years of life, if there were concerns about distracted driving, the child death rate would reflect it. It didn't.
But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.
The 500% figure is from a study conducted with painstaking detail and talent. It's not 'what people keep saying.' It is statistical representation of factual events from 2003 to 2007 with American children in American cars driven by American drivers on American roads. There's nothing to argue with.
And it's highly unlikely that those four deaths were due to yelling kids, any more than they were due to any other of the number of reasons people crash their cars.
But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.
But you don't if those 4 were screaming or distracting parents. I'm not saying that rf-ing is less safe than ff-ing if your kid is distracting you. I'm just wondering if it's the 500% people keep saying. Argh, I know what I want to say, but I can't say it the way I want to so if this isn't making sense ignore me.
Even if all 4 deaths were directly due to screaming kids/distracted parents and nothing else, it would still be worth saying that kids should RF until 3-4+ years, as they do in Sweden. Four deaths in one year. Compared to the US... where car accidents are the LEADING cause of death in kids.
Follow Mothering