To not understand the way some people's perception of risk (specifically cars), especially in the UK.

[honeytea]

A couple of recent threads have made me wonder why some things are seen as very dangerous and to be avoided and some things are seen as acceptable even if statistics show they are infact dangerous.

There are so many health and safety rules about everything in the uk, warnings about swimming in lakes and rivers, the schools have huge fences and locked gates, people are warned not to share their bed with their babies but it is still acceptable to put children in forward facing car seats from a very young age.

I live in Sweden, here kids and adults swim in the lake, school groups swim in the lake, the schools are very open, no fences, their playgrounds are often the local park, new mums are encouraged to share their beds with their babies but the huge majority use rf car seats.

the child death rate due to accedents is lower in Sweden despite the lack of safty rules.

AIBU to think that the focus is on the wrong things?

I don't think you are being unreasonable.

I'm always amazed at things worried about in this country in terms of health and safety. Yet very few people worry about roads which I think, statistically, is one of the biggest risks for our kids.

I do worry about other parents driving my DCs. Not that my driving is especially good, but just because I have no control over how they are strapped in, how the parents drive etc.

But heaven forbid if they should want to visit a petting farm!!

I agree with you.

But unfortunately cost plays a huge part in it. I for one would have loved to have kept ds rear facing as long as possible and I know all the risks but I simply cannot afford an extended rear facing car seat. I would have to get into debt to buy one and that's something that I cannot do as I am already struggling financially.

I think more people are becoming aware of the risks of forward facing their dc but the car seats do need to come down in price to let the average parent have a chance of keeping their 2/3/4 year old rear facing for longer.

Yanbu as someone who uses a rear facing seat I think a lot of it is to do with image when it comes to car seats.

Some people feel it is a rite of passage to have your 9 month old in a forward facing seat and anything else is babying them.

I agree they are more expensive so aren't suitable for everyone but I hope that once the law changes here then the availabilty will increase and the prices go down.

You have a really good point about the cost, I know it must be hard for some people. We don't have much spare money but it is expected here so it wasn't even an option to not buy a rf seat.

I have friends in the uk who have lots of money, lovely expensive clothes and posh food, 2 cars, big house, lots of holidays and their 1 year old is in a ff seat, I think they are just not aware of the dangers.

I think it's because it's just not what is sold in the biggest retailers. Most people go to a name they trust like mothercare or mamas and papas and figure that what's on sale there is the best option.

Unless the govt were to come out and support erf with some kind of advertising or awareness campaign and I don't see it changing.

Does the govt support erf in Sweden?

BTW. school fences only appeared after the Dunblane shooting, I am not saying it was a reasonable response but it was directly related and a very emotional time in the UK as we saw school shootings as a purely american problem until then.

I think the main problem is extended rear facing seats are not found in most high street shops - so most people don't even know they exist.

I think we need some change in car seat regislation - to make it illegal to forward face before 2yo. But you would need a big government backed campaign for that.

YABU because you are Swedish and so you think that everything is perfect in Sweden

Seriously though, I live in the US where the attitude to risk is pretty skewed as well e.g. guns, drink-driving but still parents here are advised to have their kids rear-facing until 2. Kind of makes me laugh as they are so cavalier about other risks here.

If people accessed risk accurately, then they wouldn't drive or want their dc in a car, so the ff/rf seat issue is not the point really. People decide to take the risk of driving.

I am not sure if they are govt supported, they are still expensive but in the big cities public transport is so good you don't actually need a car so if you can't afford a car seat you could just use public transport instead.

The school gates make me feel so sad, the message they give that the world is dangerous is so wrong imo, I do understand that they protect against gun men but it is still so so unlikely. I went to my little sisters year 5 school play and then I had to go round to the frount of the school to pick her up, the person incharge of unlocking the gate had forgotten so there were crowds of kids pushing to get out of a gate that was locked, it make me think what would happen in a fire?

I think it is also about how the message is spread.

People always link to this really sensationalist website that says basically if you crash and a child is in front facing seat they will be instantly decapitated (with video of course). It just gets me angry. Fine tell people about the risks of forward facing and the advantages of rear facing. Don't tell them that if you put them in the wrong car seat they are going to die!

I don't do a lot of driving, and its mainly short journeys at low speed. I also have a relatively new and very safe car. You do weigh up the risks. Would my child be safer in a rear facing seat? Slightly, possibly. If I was buying new now I would seriously consider getting one.

I am also just not convinced about how they work (most are partly tethered with some sort of cable tie??) and how the child is comfortable. (I see they often have their legs squished up, I have low blood pressure and know I couldn't sit like that for more than five mins or so without getting dead legs - surely there is a risk in this?)

As I said above - I don't think there has really been enough intelligent discussion about it in the UK.

I was told that my 1yo daughter needed to be in a forward facing seat, not because she was too big for the rf one, but because it was safer for her. I assumed that the road safety advisor knew what he was talking about. It was something to do with where a child's main organs are situated in their bodies, can't remember exactly, it was a long time ago. But he made me feel very guilty for having kept my older DCs rf until they were much older.

I'm not Swedish! I am British but I live in Sweden, everything is most definatly not perfect in Sweden unfriendly people not giving me a seat on the train at 8.5 months pregnant and 6 months of snow but I do think they are right in their approach to safety.

I have actually never seen an information video/advert, I have never seen a breast is best or any health bassed advert/public information.

I think they expect people to be sensible and make their own mind up about the risk level rather than just assume someone else will have risk assessed the situation.

Well for lots of areas in the UK public transport isn't an option. Where we live there are no buses at all and the nearest train station is 30 minutes away by car! (We're rural south Norfolk).

So it's car or nothing.

And car seats are marketed so confusingly. I stupidly brought a baby weavers shuffle car seat for £50 that was explained to me to be forward and rear facing from 0-18kg. I assumed this meant I could rear face until 18kg. How wrong and naive I was. I feel so silly..!

I now realise (now ds is 12kg and I checked the instructions again recently wondering about it all) that he's only meant to rear face up to 10kg.

So now having brought that seat and no money for another etc I don't really have an option but to forward face 14 month old ds.

I am going to save up for a rear facing seat I think.

The car seat manufacturers really need to sort themselves out both in terms of providing cheaper rear facing options and explaining their products.

And I'm generally not daft either! :)

I feel worried every time I drive with ds in the car so I do it as little as possible.

I kept DS in hin RF seat until he was at the max weight.
Until I read this thread I didn't even know that he could have gone into another RF seat. Never heard of them for older kids. (need to go shopping)

Ppl do die in our open waters though.
And I find posts that exist solely to criticise the risk assessments /judgements of parents smug and irritating tbh.

So hang on - in Scandinavia and the US the kids are rear facing until aged 4?

No one I know does this.

How come its not official advice anywhere? Forward facing sits are pretty much all that's offered once you are out of a baby seat.

Sounds like it needs a mumsnet campaign

What makes me laugh here is these signs on little tripod stands saying 'Caution. Wet Floor' or similar. They are below eye level for adults and most children over six and I would love to know how many people have actually escaped the peril of the wet floor but gone arse over tit over the sign.

mindyourown

So true mindyourown! Maybe that is why schools teach 4 years olds phonics so they can read the signs to their parents!

Justforlaughs he probably meant that they needed to move up to the next kind of seat. In the main they are forward facing but rear facing ones do exist and it's those that OP is on about.

And YANBU but we need more availability on the high street 'cos people just don't know about them.

In the US, it's rf until 2 years old. Some wait a bit longer to put them ff, not many though. As my DH pointed out, though, a rear-end or side impact collision is much more likely, especially here in the US with their 4-way stops and awful habit of tailgating so in those accidents rf is no safer than ff.

They sell a few in john lewis, and selected mothercare stores sell the besafe izi, although lots of mothercare stores don't know about them.

Which type of collision do they protect from the best then? (Please don't direct me to YouTube, I won't look!)

I think we could be more aware about the need to keep children rear facing. When dd3 (now 6) was little the availability of rear facing seats for older children was even worse than it is now. I kept all of mine rear facing till the max age for their seats but I've plenty of friends who have seen it as a rite of passage and relished the fact that their very young babies meet the minimum weight for the next stage of seat - and therefore need to move up.

I agree, my 21 month old is rear facing and should be able to till she's 4 or 5. I didn't know about extended rear facing when pregnant so bought the usual infant carrier but we then bought an extended rear facing seat.

I never see rf seats anywhere (I'm always on the lookout!).

Rf seats are 5 times safer in a head on collision, these are usually the worst and common collisions because they are when the car is usually moving at speed.

Re the previous comment about where their legs go, most children usually sit with legs crossed, up the back of the seat or dangling down between the seat back and infant seat. If I think about it when I'm most comfy on the sofa etc it is usually with my legs curled up or rested on something.

I try to tell anyone who has a child not yet in a FF seat about RF seats but not anyone who has already bought one.

Fwiw our local primary schools dont have gates around the grounds.