Rear-Facing Toddlers

Did anyone see this article?

Http://www.aaanewsroom.net/Main/Default.asp?CategoryID=7&ArticleID=798





AAA Urges Parents to Keep Their Young Children in Rear-Facing Child Safety Seats Longer
Washington, D.C. - 9/20/2010

AAA supports recommendation shown to reduce serious injury and death among infants and toddlers

AAA now advises parents of infants and young toddlers to secure their children in rear-facing child safety seats for as long as possible, maxing out the upper weight or height limits of the car seat. Researchers indicate that toddlers are 75 percent less likely to die or be seriously injured in a crash when they ride in a rear-facing car seat up to their second birthday. National Child Passenger Safety Week is September 19-25 and AAA has updated its safety recommendations as part of its Seated, Safe and Secure initiative.

“AAA’s safety advice to parents is rooted in available scientific evidence, and the latest research clearly shows that children should ride rear-facing as long as possible,” said AAA Vice President of Public Affairs Kathleen Marvaso. “We have a critical opportunity to save young lives by empowering parents to follow these new guidelines.”

 

I'm not surprised but I can't say I've learned anything new from it! I've heard it's actually 500 times safer to leave them rear facing...

 

thanks for sharing. we're still RF and don't see a need to change. I've read similar things like this other places too... to RF "until the upper limits of the carseats".

 

Yeah, we are still rear facing too. I'm just always excited to see yet another organization come out supporting extended rear facing!

 

Sorry to change the topic a bit but...I'm in the process of buying new car seats for the girls, and was wondering what everyone's upper limit is for rear-facing on theirs? I'm looking at the Safety First Alpha-Omega Elite, which has an upper limit of 35lbs rear-facing. Will this last me past at least 2years old???
My problem is that my car (2001 subaru outback) has very little room behind the drivers side. We could barely fit our current infant seats, so I'm really hoping the next seats fit. Thats why I'm looking at this Safety First one...it looks on the small side of the options. Any other suggestions??

Thanks for your help everybody!

Melissa

 

I think only a couple go to 40lbs but to be honest I think most kids outgrow them in length first. My kids are still 26lb or less at 2.5, but they're both about 2 inches short of the height limit, so they will probably outgrow them way before they reach the 35lb mark. We have a Britax marathon (had two but the piece that is only used for rear-facing broke when we changed cars when they were 18 months so we got a new seat), and a Graco MyRide65 (which I really don't like but it's cheap and goes to 40lb, although I'll have to come back and tell if they outgrew it at the same time or not).

I suggest you post your question at car-seat.org (I think it's this way, or just in one word). They have a forum and people are very helpful there.

Either way, I agree that it's great for companies to acknowledge this now, and hopefully it will educate people who think it's fine to switch to forward facing at 1. I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine because I know quite a few moms who know the facts but still turned their kid over at 1 for all kinds of reasons, so it seems to me that sometimes all those recommendations are useless until the law changes anyway.

 

My guys are still rear-facing. We had to turn them around in a rental car recently (my SUV was in the shop, and we got a small sedan to drive in the interim). They were amazed, like "look at all the stuff we can see!" and I thought they would fuss when we got our normal car back 2 days later. But they went happily back to rear-facing, so I'm leaving them as is. I don't anticipate turning them around for a while, unless they start getting carsick or having problems. We have a dual DVD system installed "backward" so they're happy as clams when we're on the road.

We have the Britax Boulevards, which indicate that they can be used rear-facing up to 35 pounds (I couldn't find a height limit for rear-facing, but the website says they can be used for children up to 49 inches). I don't know how big your girls are now, but the way my guys are going they're not going to hit 35 pounds until they're 4! :lol:

 

Most convertible seats go to 35 or 40 lbs RF. The ones that go up to 60 lbs generally are outgrown by height long before a child reaches that weight. I have two Evenflo Triumph Advance seats that the twins have been in since they were 9 months. I really like them. They are wider than a lot of seats, but we're been in an SUV and now a van, so that wasn't a concern. After the child turns 1 year, I believe you can change the installation angle so the seats are more upright. That should allow the front seats to go back a bit farther.

I

 

I have the Evenflo Symphony seats that can convert to boosters so the height is not an issue. The head rest rises if needed. The seats are a bit big, but they also adjust their angle so they can sit upright. They are still rear facing and the boys don't seem to mind. They can be like that until 35 lbs.

BTW, most kids don't reach 35 lbs until they are over 2 ...usually closer to around 3 years old. My boys are 31 lbs and they are 27 months (will be in 2 days), so they are on the tall side. Once they reach 2 years old, tots seem to slow down in their weight progress. Your kids are likely to be rear facing a while if you plan on keeping them that way until the weight limit or height limit of your seats are reached.

 

check to see the upper limit of the height... most are under 50". Radians from Sunshine kids are the tallest I think, 53", Recaro go pretty tall too. More and more manufacturers are raising the weight limits, but just make sure about the heights... you can look up growth charts online or ask your pedi an average height for your kids growth curve.

At almost 2 1/2 yrs our kids are just around 36" tall, so they are well under the 49" of a lot of carseat heights. And our kids are low on the weight scale, under 26 pounds, so ours will definitely out grow the height first. of course it really only matters their torso height... and how tall they sit, but their overall height is a big indicator.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/portal/nhtsa_eou/info.jsp?type=all
here's a link for the specs on most all carseats. you can see weight and heights on here... some (including Alpha Omega) go to 36" rear facing and 45" forward facing...)

 

Ugh! I am so much into Rear Facing, but I'm running into resistance from just about everyone else. My mom, my sister, my HUSBAND, our pediatrician... We have Marathons & they are still under 35lb and WAY below the 49 inches. But when you put them in their seats they have their legs squished.
How can I keep on fighting this battle??? My husband insisted on his car to be forward facing awhile ago. I keep on sending him info about why rear facing is best.

What it comes down to is when I have a differing parenting thought than my husband he becomes even more stubborn and insists his way is right. A Mr.Mom personality.

Help?

 

I'd find another pediatrician... seriously the leg excuse is getting old. I've never ever heard of a child breaking their legs in a car accident because of RF, but how many have broken their necks forward facing?

 

Wow, that's crazy. If you search Google images for "extended rear facing", you'll see lots of pictures of kids happily rear facing up to 7 years of age. They fold their legs, or extend them up the back of the seats, and it usually doesn't bother them. Also, I've heard that forward facing can be less comfortable for some kids because they have no foot support so their legs lose circulation from dangling over the edge of the carseat.

HERE is some information on why rear-facing is safer. Perhaps sharing it with your husband would help. Also, you can send your ped a link to the June 2009 BMJ where they are recommending rear-facing for children under *4*: http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1994.full

And even if they did break their legs, I'd rather have that than a broken neck. ardon:

 

About height limits, it really depends on your kids though... I don't even think that my seats have a height limit, they just say that their head needs to be more than one inch from the top of the seat.

Edit: horrible English

 

as for the pp DHs insistance on FF... I would also say to google any videos available. We are rear facing probably until 3 yrs or beyond... Our kids aren't aren't unhappy rear facing and dh was even looking at some internet research the other day and read about the part of kids spines aren't formed into bone until 3-6 yrs and that at this stage their spines are cartilige still, and their heads are just so heavy that that's where most injuries come in when they are forward facing. here's the link to what my dh found. its pretty interesting.

http://www.childrestraintsafety.com/rear-facing.html


quote: "The vertebrae do not completely ossify until ages 3-6 years old. This is why rear-facing for as long as possible is safest, because it gives more support and protection to the incomplete vertebrae and therefore the spinal cord."

anyway, good luck.

 

My only question is-why now? Why not 15 years ago? Is it the testing they've been doing since? I'm not being snarky-just curious why there is so much about it now, but there wasn't just two years ago.

I should add that I didn't read the articles. Nicholas can't sit rear facing due to him getting carsick.

 

I'm guessing they've just done more testing on the safety of FF vs RF. Probably the same as how they now suggest you leave your older children in a 5pt harness instead of a booster as long as possible.

 

Yeah probably. What drives me crazy is how today-RF is best-but tomorrow-you just never know(I'm totally generalizing it-change RF to anything else and same could apply). My boys are only 3(soon), and when they were 1-it was still recommened to be FF by then. And I think it was around the time they turned 2-the recommendation came out for keeping them RF as long as possible.

 

I really doubt there was ever a recommendation to turn them FF. Sure it said everywhere to keep them RF until 1 y and 20lbs, but it never said that you HAD to turn them over at 1. I think it's more a 'everyone is doing it so it's what we're supposed to do' mentality... still now. 90% of the people I know ignore the recommendations (or don't know about them).

I can't see how this recommendation could ever change either... it's just physics.

 

I'm right there with you Meaghan. I just did what I felt was right, and honestly it was, do I listen to her scream the entire trip no matter the length if I turn her BACK to RF, or do I leave her FF where she merely cries? I think hers was carsickness too, much better by FF. In fact, she actually enjoys riding in the car for short periods of time.

And on a selfish note, I loved the extra leg room in the driver's seat; by moving the seats FF I am able to move my seat all the way back and get an additional 2 inches. My right knee no longer has a constant bruise/scrape from driving.

 

Exactly. If you've watched the videos of FF vs. RF crash tests, it's pretty obvious.

And yes, recommendations change, and that is healthy - it means we are learning more and thinking of stuff we hadn't thought of and testing things that seemed like common sense. For example, side or stomach sleeping was thought to be safer for newborns because if they spat up, it wouldn't run back and choke them. Common sense, right? Except that then the stats showed that the spit-up issue was a non-issue and that stomach sleeping doubled SIDS risk. When recommendations change, it's interesting to look at the data and the reasons.

 

The info was out 6 years ago about extended RFing being safest, it just wasn't as wide-spread. My oldest son is 6 and he was RFing until he hit 33lbs at 27 months.

I know what you mean about things always changing - but it does seem like most of the safety precautions that change are for the better.

 

Oh no I agree that when they change-they are for the better. I just remember that when the boys were turned around, I never heard anything about RF longer was better-I've only heard more about it in the last year. I'd consider it if Nicholas didn't get carsick, and I didn't need to go and buy three new carseats. :faint:

 

Most people don't know really. Unfortunately pediatricians should be the ones pushing this and most of them don't. Mine never even mentioned car seats. Heck and they should put a note in the car seats instructions also... all they say is to wait until they're 1 yo and 20lbs to turn them around. It's pretty normal to assume that it should be safe to turn them around at 1 in those conditions (in my case they were not 20lb before 16 months or something, lol).

 

I think this is true. In my pedi's office they have little flyers about car seat safety and their flyers say until age 1 and 20 lbs to turn around. Same with the car seat instructions. The first time I've heard about recommendations to keep them rear facing longer then that was through TS at some point last year. So the info is not as wide spread.

 

My pedi mentioned at 12 mo. to go ahead and turn them around - when they reached 20 pounds, I said, nope - that I'd read new research and she didn't know about it... UGH!

i will say that most instruction manuals I've read on new carseats do have a blurb in there about keeping them in RF and the harness as long as you can, but they do still say the 1yr and 20 lb rule too b/c that's the law.

None of my friends had heard of it, and its just not widespread. Some of my current mom friends are open to the idea and like pps have said, it looks obvious to me when I read the articles and watch the videos.

 

We have the Sunshine Kids Radian and they have larger limits and they are made of steel. We have two and the girls love them. I haven't tried them for rear facing so I am not sure how much room they will leave b/w the driver seat & captain chairs.