How long did you rear face your child's carseat?

[december]

I have an Evenflo Triumph, that is ok for RF until 35 lbs, and we'll use it as long as my 20 month old fits in it. She doesn't mind at all. I turned dd11 and ds13 around at 1 yr, but rules (and carseats) were different then. I was nervous, and wanted to be able to see them. NOw, I have a mirror, and can see her pretty well, and dd11 sits in the backseat with her, so I'm sure that helps. She is short like her mama (I'm 5'2"), so she has plenty of legroom!

****She isn't bored there either! She has her sister, her books, and age appropriate toys (doll, stuffed animals, etc) that we keep in the car. Sometimes it is like a toybox back there!

 

[SassyLassy]

We turned my son FF at 26 month and my 18 month old is still RF. I will not turn her until 24 months, at least.

I rather deal with a broken leg than a broken neck.

 

[tlbwriter]

I rather deal with a broken leg than a broken neck.

I completely agree with this. However, even the broken leg isn't anything to really worry about. There aren't any documented reports of children who broke a leg because they were rear-facing. Or at least not the last time I checked.

 

[brymolmom]

Can anyone provide a direction to see actual studies of documented accidents where toddlers in forward-facing carseats did not fare as well as they would have in rear-facing.

I try googling it and get a TON of sites that say 'it is better' and that 'it is because they are too small,etc' but I cannot for the life of me find any actual sites that have statistical comparisons of crash results of forward vs. rear in similar accidents with similar size/age passengers.

I feel like I did back when I was researching BF'ing...A TON of places tell you 'breast is best' but it is very difficult, even impossible at that time at least 8 years ago, to find actual studies of BF vs. Non-BF in similar socio-econimic situations and what the results are 1 year, 2 year and 10 years down the road. Or even any of those!

 

[waltskids]

The Comfortsport seat is rather small, as another poster said, but since she is small too (not quite 22 lbs at 19 months, 30.5 inches tall), I figure when she turns 2 she most likely not be 30 lbs (the limit of the seat for RF) so we could continue to keep her RF at least until 2. We will be driving to Disney at the end of July and she will be 2 in June so I think we may keep her RF for that car ride, unless she hits a hugh growth spurt and can't face rear in that seat any longer.

Would any of you invest in another seat to keep child rear facing past 30lbs? (which for our DD may be quite a long time from now lol). DS is in Graco Nautilus which is only a forward facing seat.

I also would love to see more statistics concerning accidents of forward vs rear facing in older children.

 

[waltskids]

The Graco Comfortsport is a really small convertible car seat, my child wouldn't have made it to 2 years old in that seat.

However, my youngest is 2.5 years old and still rear facing in her Graco My Ride 65. 3 years old is my minimum age to turn her, but as long as she still fits rear facing, she will be rear facing. She's currently 37.5 inches tall and around 34 pounds.

Do you (or anyone) happen to know the height limit on the Comfortsport? I can't find the book and know the weight is 30 (I believe?) for RF.

 

[KB'sMom]

We kept our oldest RF'ing until after she turned 4. My youngest is 21 months and still RF'ing - haven't even considered flipping him and would like to keep him RF'ing until the same age - 3.5 would be my minimum for flipping unless he was over 45lbs (which I doubt).

 

[princessmom29]

Can anyone provide a direction to see actual studies of documented accidents where toddlers in forward-facing carseats did not fare as well as they would have in rear-facing.

I try googling it and get a TON of sites that say 'it is better' and that 'it is because they are too small,etc' but I cannot for the life of me find any actual sites that have statistical comparisons of crash results of forward vs. rear in similar accidents with similar size/age passengers.

I feel like I did back when I was researching BF'ing...A TON of places tell you 'breast is best' but it is very difficult, even impossible at that time at least 8 years ago, to find actual studies of BF vs. Non-BF in similar socio-econimic situations and what the results are 1 year, 2 year and 10 years down the road. Or even any of those!

there aren't any that I know of that can prove and statistical difference in real life crash tests, and i have looked as well. There is also not really a difinitive study on BFing either that I can find using real, mesurable data, and a nonbiased sample base.

 

[brymolmom]

there aren't any that I know of that can prove and statistical difference in real life crash tests, and i have looked as well. There is also not really a difinitive study on BFing either that I can find using real, mesurable data, and a nonbiased sample base.

Thank you. That's kind of what I thought too.

Unfortunately, the skeptic in me thinks that if all these statements saying 'rear is better' were actually 100% definitive - there would be a bunch of results proving it.

 

[Ava]

Can anyone provide a direction to see actual studies of documented accidents where toddlers in forward-facing carseats did not fare as well as they would have in rear-facing.

I try googling it and get a TON of sites that say 'it is better' and that 'it is because they are too small,etc' but I cannot for the life of me find any actual sites that have statistical comparisons of crash results of forward vs. rear in similar accidents with similar size/age passengers.

There is a video I've seen of crash tests showing dummies with a child's weight/proportions in rear-facing vs forward-facing car seats. I can't get the link right now because I'm at work but it's on YouTube. In a forward-facing seat, the child's head snaps forward violently in a crash; in a rear-facing seat the seat cradles the child & they hardly move.

Someone a couple pages back asked where RF kids put their legs - our seat has low sides & DD usually puts her legs over the sides of the seat (she sits in the middle).

 

[princessmom29]

There is a video I've seen of crash tests showing dummies with a child's weight/proportions in rear-facing vs forward-facing car seats. I can't get the link right now because I'm at work but it's on YouTube. In a forward-facing seat, the child's head snaps forward violently in a crash; in a rear-facing seat the seat cradles the child & they hardly move.

Someone a couple pages back asked where RF kids put their legs - our seat has low sides & DD usually puts her legs over the sides of the seat (she sits in the middle).

but are there any numbers to go with that, or just a subjective observation of how it looks?

 

[brymolmom]

There is a video I've seen of crash tests showing dummies with a child's weight/proportions in rear-facing vs forward-facing car seats. I can't get the link right now because I'm at work but it's on YouTube. In a forward-facing seat, the child's head snaps forward violently in a crash; in a rear-facing seat the seat cradles the child & they hardly move.

Someone a couple pages back asked where RF kids put their legs - our seat has low sides & DD usually puts her legs over the sides of the seat (she sits in the middle).

Thanks, I think I've seen that one. I'm looking for studies done with actual accidents, not dummies. If anyone knows of one - point me to it.

 

[kohlby]

Would any of you invest in another seat to keep child rear facing past 30lbs?

Yes, but it's not just keeping rf-ing longer, it can keep a child in a 5-point harness longer as well. Though we had the Britax Marathon for the first two kids that only had rf-ing for 33lbs, we ran into an issue with harness height. My oldest has a super long torso and would have outgrown traditional (up to 40lbs) convertible seats before 18 months! At that time, the Marathon was the only choice I was aware of. Even with it's 65lb limit and taller harness, he outgrew it ff-ing in height right before he turned 3 years old! So, we had to shell out more money for the Britax Regent. That fit him for his torso height until right before 6.

This time around, I had a better seat option - Sunshine Kids Radian. I bought the 65 since the 80 has the exact same torso height and weight rarely is an issue with outgrowing a 65 lb or more carseat. It has a longer torso height than the Marathon and is rf-ing up to 40lbs. So, I highly recommend it for both rf-ing longer and for being in a 5-point harness longer. My third child also has a long torso. I'm glad I could pay just under $200 for a seat that will last until he's ready for a booster instead of spending close to $500 for two seats due to a long torso.

 

[jodifla]

Thank you. That's kind of what I thought too.

Unfortunately, the skeptic in me thinks that if all these statements saying 'rear is better' were actually 100% definitive - there would be a bunch of results proving it.

With these types of things, I always find the the hardest, least convenient way is always thought to be "best" and if you question it at all, or apply some "what if" scenarios, then you are a lazy parent.

 

[Erica09M]

Do you (or anyone) happen to know the height limit on the Comfortsport? I can't find the book and know the weight is 30 (I believe?) for RF.

For height, the child needs to have 1 inch of shell above their head. You can use this link to see a tutorial on how to measure that 1 inch:
http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=30201

As for the weight limit, there should be a sticker on the side of your seat that gives you the information, but yes, I do believe it is only 30 pounds.

The seat is outgrown rear facing as soon as they reach the weight limit (fully dressed) or when they no longer have that 1 inch of shell above their head... which ever happens first

 

[Erica09M]

Would any of you invest in another seat to keep child rear facing past 30lbs? (which for our DD may be quite a long time from now lol). DS is in Graco Nautilus which is only a forward facing seat.

I also would love to see more statistics concerning accidents of forward vs rear facing in older children.

Because children under the age of 4 years old are safer riding rear facing that forward facing. I don't know many 4 year olds that weigh less that 30 pounds. Also, many of the car seats that only rear face to 30 pounds are rather small in shell height, and can be outgrown before a child even reaches 30 pounds.

http://www.kyledavidmiller.org/car-seat-safety-rear-facing-is-safest.html

ETA: Yes, if my child's seat wouldn't get her to a minimum of 3 years old rear facing, I would absolutely buy her a new car seat.

 

[Ava]

Thanks, I think I've seen that one. I'm looking for studies done with actual accidents, not dummies. If anyone knows of one - point me to it.

Found this, from the British Medical Journal:

Pivotal study supporting rear facing car seats for young children
Methods

A retrospective cohort study by Henary and colleagues used the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s vehicle crash database for 1998-2003.3 The database is representative and allows crash data to be extrapolated to provide national estimates. Of the 870 children studied (all aged under 2 years), 352 were in rear facing car seats and 518 were in forward car facing seats. The study defined injury as an injury severity score of 9 or more, which is considered to represent moderate and severe injuries.
Results and conclusions

It concluded that rear facing seats were more effective than forward facing seats in protecting children aged 0-23 months for all crash types (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 2.20). Effectiveness estimates compared with no restraint were 93% for rear facing seats and 78% for forward facing seats. These were calculated using estimates of the percentage reduction in rate of injury if all children changed from being unrestrained to being users of the particular car seat type. In side impacts, children were much more likely to be injured in forward facing seats (5.53; 3.74 to 8.18). When children aged 12-23 months were analysed separately, the findings remained: children in forward facing seats were much more likely to be injured (5.32; 3.43 to 8.24).

Link to the full article: http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1994.full

This particular study only concerned children under age 2, but is this the type of statistics you are looking for?

 

[Ava]

With these types of things, I always find the the hardest, least convenient way is always thought to be "best" and if you question it at all, or apply some "what if" scenarios, then you are a lazy parent.

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to be inconvenienced and to put forth a little extra effort if it means keeping my child safe.

 

[jodifla]

I don't know about you, but I'm willing to be inconvenienced and to put forth a little extra effort if it means keeping my child safe.

Which is exactly the type of (guilt-laden) reasoning I mean.

As I said, I turned my child at 1 and was happy to do so, and would do it again.

 

[brymolmom]

Found this, from the British Medical Journal:

Pivotal study supporting rear facing car seats for young children
Methods

A retrospective cohort study by Henary and colleagues used the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s vehicle crash database for 1998-2003.3 The database is representative and allows crash data to be extrapolated to provide national estimates. Of the 870 children studied (all aged under 2 years), 352 were in rear facing car seats and 518 were in forward car facing seats. The study defined injury as an injury severity score of 9 or more, which is considered to represent moderate and severe injuries.
Results and conclusions

It concluded that rear facing seats were more effective than forward facing seats in protecting children aged 0-23 months for all crash types (odds ratio 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.40 to 2.20). Effectiveness estimates compared with no restraint were 93% for rear facing seats and 78% for forward facing seats. These were calculated using estimates of the percentage reduction in rate of injury if all children changed from being unrestrained to being users of the particular car seat type. In side impacts, children were much more likely to be injured in forward facing seats (5.53; 3.74 to 8.18). When children aged 12-23 months were analysed separately, the findings remained: children in forward facing seats were much more likely to be injured (5.32; 3.43 to 8.24).

Link to the full article: http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.b1994.full

This particular study only concerned children under age 2, but is this the type of statistics you are looking for?

Thank you, I will be reading this tonight.