To think most parents don't know that rearfacing DCs is safer?

[mumaw]

I'm in Facebook groups that specialise in advice for mainly extended rear facing car seats. It's proven that rear facing your child is much, much safer (in fact 500% safer) than front facing.

But I never see anybody RF'ing their child and don't know anybody that does either.

Is it just a case of parents not knowing that its safer?

Sorry if I repeat anything anybody else has said. My DD rear faced until 3.5 but I switched DS at around 18 months or possibly a bit before.
He would scream pull his arms out and it was so distracting I switched and he was better.
Before switching I looked for the evidence and found that although I can understand the theory of 5 x safer I found that in actual fact very few children of toddler age are killed or seriously injured travelling in vehicle in the UK, if somebody has anything to dispute this then I’m happily corrected.

A child in a modern safe car in an appropriate, correctly installed and strapped in to a forward facing car seat is well protected and a low risk of injury and rear facing reduces this to a minute risk.
parents will make judgements like they do with other aspects of parenting where evidence suggests there is a ‘safer’ option such as co-sleeping, breast feeding, weaning age.

500% safer is meaningless without the numbers OP - if it went from one in ten to five in ten, obviously very bad. If it goes from one in a million to five in a million, it's more likely to be a risk worth taking. Both are increases of 500%.

DD faced forwards from about 2 as otherwise her legs were crammed in.

I was told that not only is RF safer but that the center seat in the rear of the car is the safest seat. I was shocked as I have never put my children in the center!

Part of it is resistance to what they see as something other than the norm, part of it is ignorance. Eg people saying where do their legs go? Just means they are envisaging a 4 year old in an infant carrier. In fact extended rear facing seats are much bigger and higher up so have loads of leg room and a great view out of the side and rear windows as opposed to looking at the back of the front seat like ff kids do.
We were seen as freaks when we went for extended rear facing 12 years ago, at least there are more options these days.
To be honest though, I know and see plenty of people who don't even bother with car seats or seat belts for their kids so the fact most people don't care about rear facing being safer is not that baffling. It's no good trying to tell people they will just get defensive so just do what you think is best for your child.

I find the contrast between this and a post last week about moving a two month old into his own room very surprising.

An OP last week asked about the safety of putting her two month old in his own room, with a baby monitor, because he was a noisy sleeper and keeping her awake. She asked because she was aware of the guidelines saying 6 months.

People correctly pointed out that this can increase he risk of SIDS and were pretty unanimous in saying "don't take the risk, it's not worth it."

So I'm surprised at the many responses here saying "I'm aware ERF is safer, but I've weighed up the risks and it's a risk I'm willing to take / the risk is small" etc.

You can get good RF seats for £100. I don't understand why so many people wouldn't do that in order to minimise a known risk, but are stringent in their 6 month sleeping guidelines so as to reduce the SIDS risk as much as possible.

I think they know and don’t care, which is sad. Mine (huge, top of the charts for height) RF until 4.

My dd was rear facing until she was 3.5 years (and then went over the r.f weight) the amount of comments and almost judgement I got that 'her poor legs must be squashed'... She had her legs crossed and was comfy. When I very matter of fact said that it was much safer I got told I was being ott by some
I really don't think everyone is clued up on it tbh

Also the best thing you can do to reduce risk is minimise time in the car, surely?

Youngest RF until 2.5. Then big sister started school and she was in the back seat alone and the tantrums were unreal. She would scream until she struggled to breathe. In a car crash she would have been safer RF. Everyday life FF was safer.

Don't judge other parents until you have parented their child.

I also let my children travel on the school bus from the age of four. It had lap belts. I could have made them walk the four mile trip...

My 6 & 4 yo rf until the were 5.5 & 4 (which is when they hit 18kg respectively) & my 2yo will be the same (currently 13kg so will be around the same age I would have thought). My 9 & 8yo rf until the were about 3 from memory, as the seats we had for them only rf until 15kg & were the best we could afford at the time. I agree it does seem that most people don’t know it’s safer. I also think they’re maybe unsure about not being able to see their dc properly. I’m lucky in that my eldest sits next to my youngest through choice & does keep an eye on him for me.

FWIW all my dc are taller than average, my 4yo is the height of most 6yo & his legs were fine, he just used to cross them (which is what his siblings have done/do) so I don’t buy the whole ‘they’re too tall’ argument. Most people I know with a child 2 or younger rf & intend to for as long as possible.

Went ff at about 18mo due to travel sickness.

The small risk of crashing wasn’t worth the certainty of puking.

I really don't think everyone is clued up on it tbh.

Exactly - since the research on RF vs FF seats is non conclusive. People keep referring to the old 2007 study that has been retracted.

The statement that RF seats are much safer (especially for older toddlers and pre-schoolers) as of now does not have scientific backing. RF seats may be marginally safer but this still needs to be supported by more detailed studies.

Here is another link that explains the state of the current research:

www.saferidenews.com/2017/12/updated-study-on-rf-vs-ff-effectiveness/

@wintertravel1980 that study does make me feel better. I had done a bunch of other research into the stats when I switched them round at about 18kgs, but have always been a bit conflicted about not getting bigger seats and keeping them in them until 26kgs, but that does make me feel better.

Both my daughters started out rear facing.

For some reason rear facing caused them both to feel car sick. For my youngest this meant bringing up whatever she had in her stomach every single car journey no matter how short.

I know RF is safer but they were distressed and we were distressed.

We stuck with it as long as we could but had to switch them both to front facing at just over one year old. They are no longer car sick and look forward to going out.

My son gets horribly sick rfing unfortunately

winter I disagree with your interpretation of the study you linked. The numbers in the study show a lot more serious injuries in FF than RF. They are unable to conclude that RF is safer than FF because the number of accidents with severe injusries is so small.

This doesn't mean there is more evidence for a smaller difference in safety then a bigger difference in safety as you appear to imply. It means there were too few serious injuries from RF to conclude anything.

It boggles my mind, to be honest, that you can't just add up all the data from car accidents and sort this out. Surely, when pooled across say the whole of Europe there is enough information?

But the take home message is clear - you are at a low risk of serious injury to your child when using either system!

I worry more about people taking their kids out of seats altogether before they need to.

Is this recent advice? I didn't know this was applicable to non-babies until a few months ago when some more recent mums were discussing it. I didn't see this advice when I was pregnant with my first. My three and six year olds have front facing. TBH it would be impossible to get them to accept rear facing now.

@SudowoodoVoodoo

You might not have been involved in car seat conversations when your eight year old was a baby but I can assure you that RF seats weren’t a specialist item then. I was online having (E)RF car seat conversations several years before that - the two current teenagers in my family both used (E)RF seats bought on the high street. The were certainly there, although agree availability and choice became better because when I shopped for a (E)RF seat for my youngest child - born 2011 I had the choice of several in every store.

We still rear face and DD will be 14 months this month. She's not yet 9kg though, so FF is out of the question anyway. We are still going to do RF for as long as possible! We went to look at car seats yesterday as she will need a new one soon, and I said to the shop assistant that I only wanted to look at seats that RF and FF.

If it does become law it will have to come with a caveat for height, like it does for booster seats, as some 2 year olds simply are too long for a rear facing seat.

@TabbyMumz If it does become law it will have to come with a caveat for height, like it does for booster seats, as some 2 year olds simply are too long for a rear facing seat.

No, they're not. Many children can RF up until age 12.

A 2 year old may well be too tall for an infant carrier, but not for an ERF car seat.

I disagree with your interpretation of the study you linked. The numbers in the study show a lot more serious injuries in FF than RF.

They sort of do - on the face of it (which is explained in the article). Those were the results of the initial study that claimed the 500% benefit in safety stats. The study was peer reviewed and published in 2007 (even though the numbers did appear small). The 500% number made it into the newspaper headlines and was picked up by the RF proponents.

However, even this particular study was subsequently retracted (which is explained in the chapter "The 2007 study: what went wrong".)

It means there were too few serious injuries from RF to conclude anything.

No, actually it means there are too few serious injuries whenever car seats are used (regardless of whether they are RF or FF).

I think eventually it will be come the law to ERF, like in other countries. The statistics speak for themselves. DSis is a paediatrician, she sees internal decapitation injuries in A&E and is a staunch advocate of ERF.

DS is 2, and still rear facing. We'll keep him rear facing till at least 4.

And for those who say "yes, but what about the other risks you take with him?" - I don't. He's still BF, we don't smoke or own a dog, we don't speed, we make sure we feed him a very healthy diet, and DS is up to date with his vaccinations. We are generally very risk-averse when it comes to DS!

Today I have learnt to forward face all of the formula babies. They're a lost cause anyway

We flipped DS to FF as soon as we could, because he got really car sick, and howled the whole time.

As others have said, it is FAR more dangerous to have a distracted driver with a RF child than a FF child and a driver with all their attention on the road.

Plus we have a really safe tank car, and the vast majority of our driving is done at low speed in the city so the statistical danger to DS is vanishingly small whichever way he is facing