Advanced search

To keep ds in a rear facing seat?

(227 Posts)
Edenviolet Tue 25-Feb-14 09:09:35

Dh thinks so as ds2 (22months) fusses and cries a lot and dh thinks his legs are "squashed up".
He wants to turn the seat round so that ds can see more and might not get as upset in his car seat.

Dh said it won't make a difference and that he drives carefully but I pointed out that it might not be dh that causes an accident heaven forbid one happens and that it all depends where the impact is etc and so if rear facing is meant to be safer I want to keep ds that way.

Dh thinks I'm being over protective and has said he is concerned about ds legs being so restricted.


Theonlyoneiknow Thu 27-Feb-14 10:21:24

DS is actually 4.3yrs! Just very skinny!

Yip, failing two ERF seats DD in the TWE. We have a kiddy guardian pro in the camper van so I am just swithering about the best FF seat for the focus if can't RF. According to Which? Impact shields are better than harnesses but have read conflicting info. Arghhh

Yonineedaminute Thu 27-Feb-14 09:36:45

theonlyone I think by the time they are 14kgs (approaching 3?) it becomes less important that they are forward facing so if you cannot fit 2 erf seats then an erf for your youngest is still good! I have also heard different things about harnesses vs the impact cushions. I think the problem is there are many different types of crashes and depending on the crash will affect the effectiveness of the different types of seats which makes the risk factor much more difficult to quantify.

Theonlyoneiknow Thu 27-Feb-14 09:21:16

I can't fit two RF seats in our car so need to have one FF, he is 14kgs. But I keep reading conflicting advice on harness v impact shield. I do have a kiddy guardian pro which is an impact shield but have read they van be really dangerous to their internal organs in an accident, but then on another report read that harnesses can be dangerous due to the spinal cord damage in an accident.

Why do they make it so hard for us to make the right choice.

Sorry to hijack OP

MyNameIsKenAdams Thu 27-Feb-14 08:52:24

But how many families could actually not ever drive?

akachan Thu 27-Feb-14 08:48:11

But do you also lower that risk by not using your car when there is any other way to manage? Anyone how drives to the supermarket instead of getting shopping delivered for example?

I'm not having a go honestly or telling people not to rf their kids, I just think it's odd that we obsess about safely driving children when the obvious risk reduction is not to drive at all.

McPheezingMyButtOff Thu 27-Feb-14 08:43:26

When you're talking about lowering a risk of my child surviving or not, I know which I'd prefer.

SunnySon Thu 27-Feb-14 07:24:49

My ds is a similar age and weight to yours and is still rear facing, it is so much safer, especially so for children who are small for their age due to the risks of internal decapitation in an accident. He is happy rear facing but probably would be happier forward facing but that's not a good enough reason for me to turn him. I read a good article once from 'the car seat lady' (FB) who explained that sometimes adults see children's legs as being squashed or uncomfortable rf just because the adults would not sit like that, whereas on reality the children were happy with how their legs were and often sit on the sofa etc with their legs squashed up. Not saying this is the case with your ds but maybe something to consider. IMO your ds is too small/ light to be forward facing x

akachan Thu 27-Feb-14 06:20:09

This has been a fascinating discussion, lots to think about. It does seem an extremely expensive way to slightly lower risk though. Do you think we'd save more lives just encouraging people to drive less often?

McPheezingMyButtOff Wed 26-Feb-14 23:27:05

The problem is, that parents just think that if their child is in a seat then they are safe.


It has everything to do with their height, there weight, there age and stage of physical development. I mean, would you fix a two month old in with just a seatbelt? No. Why? Because all of the above tell us they wouldn't be safe. This is no different for a child of 1,2,3 or 4 years old. We just need to educate more. Safety in cars is paramount. You cannot judge the actions of other cars around you. So by doing everything you can to physically protect tiny passengers, the better an outcome can be.

Yonineedaminute Wed 26-Feb-14 21:35:22

Thank you crashbangboom for that link, interesting about the pelvis width. And a lot more informative than the '*in my opinion* 2 year olds just shouldnt be in a high backed booster/its to do with internal decapitation' posts that came before.

gamerchick Wed 26-Feb-14 21:29:50

yeah because some parents are stupid.. I mean really stupid that it's scary. needs

NeedsAsockamnesty Wed 26-Feb-14 21:27:16

The problem with parents deciding when a child has outgrown a seat is a huge % of them are wrong!

That's the main reason for the phase in of the new regs

MyNameIsKenAdams Wed 26-Feb-14 21:10:43

I read the "point scoring" thing as if it was a dig from the "you can put a two year old in a hbb and adult belt" side of the argument.

Chippednailvarnish Wed 26-Feb-14 21:04:01

Err I'm not sure if that was aimed at me Mynameis ? I'm all for RF confused

Chippednailvarnish Wed 26-Feb-14 21:01:43

This also covers using a five point harness

MyNameIsKenAdams Wed 26-Feb-14 20:59:57

Tbf I dont really care if you think this is "point scoring". Rear facing is the safest way for a child to travel. Putting a two year old in a hbb with an adult seatbelt securing them is the least safe, bar actually no child seat at all.

There are seats out there that safely secure small children way past 18kg. It is a fact that this is safer.

crashbangboom Wed 26-Feb-14 20:51:22

crashbangboom Wed 26-Feb-14 20:50:31

Its to do with bone maturity. Rearfacing toddlers had a good post of their Facebook page in last few days about it.

Yonineedaminute Wed 26-Feb-14 20:44:22

Nope it's not point scoring, it's just that no one has really been able to give a valid reason (apart from maturity) why an 18kg 2.9 year old cannot go in a high backed booster seat.

I am all for rear facing, ds is in erf, but internal decaptiation is due to the direction of travel, not the type of seat.

Littleen Wed 26-Feb-14 20:42:07

research says that they really should stay rear facing at that age, so I'd stick to that.

Dinosaurporn Wed 26-Feb-14 20:34:04

Yep, I'm with you on the point scoring...

TheScience Wed 26-Feb-14 20:29:18

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the link between sitting safely in the seat and internal decapitation? Like Yoni I also thought that was about direction of travel.

Chippednailvarnish Wed 26-Feb-14 20:27:15

Why is an adult seatbelt not safe enough at 18kg? Is it safe enough for an 18kg 4 yo but not a younger child?

I was answering this ^

As for why not use an adult seat belt on a young child - it's already been said up thread. Children don't sit really still, in the safest possible position in their seats. The amount of children who like to put the seatbelt under their armpits when they think no one is looking...

However I get the feeling that some people on this thread are no really interested in anything but a point scoring argument, rather than making sure people are traveling safely.

Yonineedaminute Wed 26-Feb-14 20:19:51

Thing not thugs!

Yonineedaminute Wed 26-Feb-14 20:19:24

Yes, I also thought the internal decapitation thugs was to do with direction of travel rather than type of harness.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now