At what age, did you turn your carseat forward?

[Anonymous]

At 2.5. My son never cared that he was rearfacing or had scrunched legs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Her pediatrician gave the okay; weight wise she was within the threshold and her legs were just so cramped. It made life so much easier and she began to actually enjoy being in the car. I will be honest, until I moved here, I had never heard of people waiting until 2+ to go forward facing.

I don't think it has to do with living here as much as the recommendation changing last year to at least 2 years.

For the poster that made the stupid comment about the helmet. Keeping your kid rear-facing is such a simple move that makes your kid 5x safer. There's nothing impractical about it (like wearing a helmet all day). Do what you want with your kid but others may be interested in doing some research, there are plenty of videos of crash tests available online showing the difference in impact of ff vs rf (google it). When an adult's head snaps forward in a car wreck we may get whiplash but the same impact can break a kid's neck since their developing spine isn't nearly as strong, and their head is proportionately more heavy. I'll be waiting until at least 2 and probably longer to turn my kid. It may be uncomfortable for the kid (which is debatable anyhow) but the alternative is much, much worse. In Europe they recommend (or mandate?) rear-facing til age 4.

We live in Austria and I NEVER see any rear facing car seats. In fact, I have seen an infant seat installed in the FRONT seat of a high end SUV despite the back seat being completely empty. I routinely see convertible car seats in the front seat as well. They seem to be extremely lax about car seat safety here. The few times we have used European car seats, the quality has been awful.

[Anonymous]

Still rear-facing at 4 and 1.5. Not sure why you'd take unnecessary risks with your kids.

[Anonymous]

3. Scrunched legs were not an issue.

[Anonymous]

My daughter will be 3 soon and is still RFing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Her pediatrician gave the okay; weight wise she was within the threshold and her legs were just so cramped. It made life so much easier and she began to actually enjoy being in the car. I will be honest, until I moved here, I had never heard of people waiting until 2+ to go forward facing.

I don't think it has to do with living here as much as the recommendation changing last year to at least 2 years.

For the poster that made the stupid comment about the helmet. Keeping your kid rear-facing is such a simple move that makes your kid 5x safer. There's nothing impractical about it (like wearing a helmet all day). Do what you want with your kid but others may be interested in doing some research, there are plenty of videos of crash tests available online showing the difference in impact of ff vs rf (google it). When an adult's head snaps forward in a car wreck we may get whiplash but the same impact can break a kid's neck since their developing spine isn't nearly as strong, and their head is proportionately more heavy. I'll be waiting until at least 2 and probably longer to turn my kid. It may be uncomfortable for the kid (which is debatable anyhow) but the alternative is much, much worse. In Europe they recommend (or mandate?) rear-facing til age 4.

We live in Austria and I NEVER see any rear facing car seats. In fact, I have seen an infant seat installed in the FRONT seat of a high end SUV despite the back seat being completely empty. I routinely see convertible car seats in the front seat as well. They seem to be extremely lax about car seat safety here. The few times we have used European car seats, the quality has been awful.

Its primarily in Sweden that has the extended RF, but it is spreading to the UK and other places as you can get some of the Swedish seats easily if you live in the UK (but none I have found ship to the states yet). In Sweden, its common to put kids in the front seat as their cars are designed for it and they feel it is "safer" as the parent can attend to the child better. Europe is a big place with lots of countries so you can't compare what one is doing with another.

http://www.carseat.se/are-car-seats-in-front-seat-safe/

[Anonymous]

So why is it that poster after poster keeps touting that in Europe it is so muc better and safer. But when someone actually from Europe pipes in that in general it is much less safer there then they are dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course a child can die doing just about anything, but CAR ACCIDENT ARE THE #1 KILLER OF KIDS. Rear-facing is 5 times safer, so it's a no -brainer. Just keep them rear-facing for as long as they fit the seat. The child will be 3, 4 or 5 in 99% of cases. Simple as that. In Sweden nearly ALL kids rear-face to 4 or 5, and there are hardly any injuries or deaths to kids in cars there.

I don't understand how any parent could make an argument about SOCIAL WELL-BEING or OVER-PROTECTIVENESS when it comes to car safety? If the child does not 5-step and fit the adult seatbelt, he/she uses a booster. Most kids will be between 10 and 11. Have you seen what a seatbelt that goes across the abdomen of a typical 8-year-old does? It cuts the child in half in a crash. Kids and tweens don't fit adult seatbelts!

Using carseats to the maximum height/weight is not overprotective, it's good parenting.

And my child, EVEN AT 12, would use a booster when with friends if he doesn't 5-step, or NOT ride. That simple. And I wouldn't carpool any child without a booster if the child didn't 5-step. This is a child's life we are talking about.

I'm pretty lax about everything else, but NOT car safety.

You are incorrect. Teens yes, little kids no. For 2009 - In the 0-1 age range motor vehicle accidents accounted for 91 deaths (7.7%). It doesn't even make the top twenty causes of death. In the 1-4 age range drowning is the leading cause of accidental death (450 deaths), the number 1 cause of death is congenital abnormalities (464 deaths), then homicide (372 deaths) and in 4th place, tied with cancer MV accidents (350 deaths each). There are 25.5 million children in the 0-5 age range in the US - car safety is important but you make it sound far worse than it is. Every death is sad but we are talking 440 deaths out of 25.5 million children and how many billion car rides. It is assumable that some of those deaths were kids in RF seats, others were FF but would have died regardless (e.g. car on fire, massive impact).

In the 5-9 age group MV accidents (378 deaths) are the second leading cause of death after cancer (477 deaths). MV accidents are not the leading cause of death in young children. Is RF or any use of car seats safer- yes but get your facts straight before you yell in CAPS. MV accidents became the leading cause of death in the 10-14 age group with 491 deaths, just ahead of cancer (477 deaths) and then suicide (291 deaths). It is your teens (15+) you need to worry more about. And stop being lax about everything else - drowning is a greater risk to your kids.

[Anonymous]

Oops forgot to add link to source of stats:
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: just an FYI... if you have an accident in a European carseat your insurance company will NOT replace your carseat.

Ok, and how is that a problem? I'll replace it regardless of if they pay for it as my child's safety is my priority.

alot of people dont have 600 dollars to buy a carseat only to have to do it again. So it is a thought to keep in mind.

also if they find out you dont have a "legal" seat they could fight paying your childs medical bills if they have any related to the accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: just an FYI... if you have an accident in a European carseat your insurance company will NOT replace your carseat.

Ok, and how is that a problem? I'll replace it regardless of if they pay for it as my child's safety is my priority.

alot of people dont have 600 dollars to buy a carseat only to have to do it again. So it is a thought to keep in mind.

also if they find out you dont have a "legal" seat they could fight paying your childs medical bills if they have any related to the accident.

There are many people who do have the money but in all reality a "good" seat is not in their priority. If you are lower income, there are resources for free seats so there is no excuse not to have a working, current/not expired car seat regardless of which seat you choose. I'd rather sacrifice other things like not having a fancy car, fancy house, buying the most current in season clothing, going out to eat/coffee every chance I get to have a car seat that will keep my child safer. If you use a car seat properly, it cuts down significantly on the injures. I can't imagine an insurance company is going to be so concerned about the seat. That is just an excuse you are making as it isn't your priority. Its ok, just admit it. You can get a decent American seat too but they are harder to extend RF. If it isn't your priority, just admit it and admit that you don't care but to come up with 1001 excuses of why you can't properly use a car seat is just unsafe for your child. You can afford that fancy cell phone or internet to make these posts so get rid of that for a few months and get your kid a good seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course a child can die doing just about anything, but CAR ACCIDENT ARE THE #1 KILLER OF KIDS. Rear-facing is 5 times safer, so it's a no -brainer. Just keep them rear-facing for as long as they fit the seat. The child will be 3, 4 or 5 in 99% of cases. Simple as that. In Sweden nearly ALL kids rear-face to 4 or 5, and there are hardly any injuries or deaths to kids in cars there.

I don't understand how any parent could make an argument about SOCIAL WELL-BEING or OVER-PROTECTIVENESS when it comes to car safety? If the child does not 5-step and fit the adult seatbelt, he/she uses a booster. Most kids will be between 10 and 11. Have you seen what a seatbelt that goes across the abdomen of a typical 8-year-old does? It cuts the child in half in a crash. Kids and tweens don't fit adult seatbelts!

Using carseats to the maximum height/weight is not overprotective, it's good parenting.

And my child, EVEN AT 12, would use a booster when with friends if he doesn't 5-step, or NOT ride. That simple. And I wouldn't carpool any child without a booster if the child didn't 5-step. This is a child's life we are talking about.

I'm pretty lax about everything else, but NOT car safety.

You are incorrect. Teens yes, little kids no. For 2009 - In the 0-1 age range motor vehicle accidents accounted for 91 deaths (7.7%). It doesn't even make the top twenty causes of death. In the 1-4 age range drowning is the leading cause of accidental death (450 deaths), the number 1 cause of death is congenital abnormalities (464 deaths), then homicide (372 deaths) and in 4th place, tied with cancer MV accidents (350 deaths each). There are 25.5 million children in the 0-5 age range in the US - car safety is important but you make it sound far worse than it is. Every death is sad but we are talking 440 deaths out of 25.5 million children and how many billion car rides. It is assumable that some of those deaths were kids in RF seats, others were FF but would have died regardless (e.g. car on fire, massive impact).

In the 5-9 age group MV accidents (378 deaths) are the second leading cause of death after cancer (477 deaths). MV accidents are not the leading cause of death in young children. Is RF or any use of car seats safer- yes but get your facts straight before you yell in CAPS. MV accidents became the leading cause of death in the 10-14 age group with 491 deaths, just ahead of cancer (477 deaths) and then suicide (291 deaths). It is your teens (15+) you need to worry more about. And stop being lax about everything else - drowning is a greater risk to your kids.

Its not just the deaths you have to worry about. I would be more concerned about the injury's that could be life long to a child. If you can try your best to not be one of those 91 deaths, why on earth would you not try your hardest to prevent that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So why is it that poster after poster keeps touting that in Europe it is so muc better and safer. But when someone actually from Europe pipes in that in general it is much less safer there then they are dismissed.

Europe is a pretty big place. They are from one particular country that does it one way. There are many countries in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why is it that poster after poster keeps touting that in Europe it is so muc better and safer. But when someone actually from Europe pipes in that in general it is much less safer there then they are dismissed.

Europe is a pretty big place. They are from one particular country that does it one way. There are many countries in Europe.

Yet that didn't prevent the people from preaching the way "they do it in Europe". It was ok for Europe to be a single thing for as long as it served the argument; all of a sudden Austria just one of many many places in Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course a child can die doing just about anything, but CAR ACCIDENT ARE THE #1 KILLER OF KIDS. Rear-facing is 5 times safer, so it's a no -brainer. Just keep them rear-facing for as long as they fit the seat. The child will be 3, 4 or 5 in 99% of cases. Simple as that. In Sweden nearly ALL kids rear-face to 4 or 5, and there are hardly any injuries or deaths to kids in cars there.

I don't understand how any parent could make an argument about SOCIAL WELL-BEING or OVER-PROTECTIVENESS when it comes to car safety? If the child does not 5-step and fit the adult seatbelt, he/she uses a booster. Most kids will be between 10 and 11. Have you seen what a seatbelt that goes across the abdomen of a typical 8-year-old does? It cuts the child in half in a crash. Kids and tweens don't fit adult seatbelts!

Using carseats to the maximum height/weight is not overprotective, it's good parenting.

And my child, EVEN AT 12, would use a booster when with friends if he doesn't 5-step, or NOT ride. That simple. And I wouldn't carpool any child without a booster if the child didn't 5-step. This is a child's life we are talking about.

I'm pretty lax about everything else, but NOT car safety.

You are incorrect. Teens yes, little kids no. For 2009 - In the 0-1 age range motor vehicle accidents accounted for 91 deaths (7.7%). It doesn't even make the top twenty causes of death. In the 1-4 age range drowning is the leading cause of accidental death (450 deaths), the number 1 cause of death is congenital abnormalities (464 deaths), then homicide (372 deaths) and in 4th place, tied with cancer MV accidents (350 deaths each). There are 25.5 million children in the 0-5 age range in the US - car safety is important but you make it sound far worse than it is. Every death is sad but we are talking 440 deaths out of 25.5 million children and how many billion car rides. It is assumable that some of those deaths were kids in RF seats, others were FF but would have died regardless (e.g. car on fire, massive impact).

In the 5-9 age group MV accidents (378 deaths) are the second leading cause of death after cancer (477 deaths). MV accidents are not the leading cause of death in young children. Is RF or any use of car seats safer- yes but get your facts straight before you yell in CAPS. MV accidents became the leading cause of death in the 10-14 age group with 491 deaths, just ahead of cancer (477 deaths) and then suicide (291 deaths). It is your teens (15+) you need to worry more about. And stop being lax about everything else - drowning is a greater risk to your kids.

Its not just the deaths you have to worry about. I would be more concerned about the injury's that could be life long to a child. If you can try your best to not be one of those 91 deaths, why on earth would you not try your hardest to prevent that.

What does that have to do with the fact that stats are invented on a fly to scare the "irresponsible" parents.