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?

I don't think they made them for my older children past age 1. I'm not going to buy new ones now.

Personally I hanker after standing on the arm rest between your parents and sticking your head out of the sun roof, those were the days!

Surely this is all dependant which direction you car gets crashed into?

The relative velocity of a frontal impact is likely to be much higher than a rear-on. If the cars are in a straight line, the former is the sum, the latter is the difference. And as I hope we all know, energy is proportional to velocity squared.

My now 5 yr old is in age 8 clothing. There's absolutely no way he would be comfortable at all going off those pictures.

I've just watched one of the videos on the link. It's all very dependent on having what I would call a 'standard' full on shunt from behind. Surely most crashes are side on?! In which case it makes no difference which way your child is facing if they're shunted from the side?

Anyway. The safest thing to do is not drive in a car! It's dangerous simply leaving the house. So long as the child is in a good car seat and strapped in, we shouldn't judge. Not all parents have the money to buy the RF seats (and they are considerably more expensive, especially if you need more than one) .

A friend of DS's (also 5) goes in the car WITHOUT a car seat at all. Then it's ok to judge! Otherwise, I think we should leave people well alone. We all make calls every day based on our best intentions.

@yourestandingonmyneck those are some big cars with the passenger seats pulled a long way forward

had my 5.5 year old in a RF seat last week and he was perfectly comfortable - legs included.
How tall is she?

You can buy a seat the rear faces up to 18kg for around £80 which I don't consider extortionate.

My understanding is that with FF seats there should be a gap of 55cm between the child seat and the seat in front for the seat to be safely fitted. When you take this into account the erf seats take up around the same amount of space.

But looking at the photos that yourestandingonmyneck posted, in a crash, wouldn't the children in the 1st and last photos have broken legs?

Maybe not as bad in the grand scheme of things if you are considering internal decapitation, but depending on where the collision impact occurred there may have been no injuries at all in a FF seat? Just wondering...

My very tall nearly 5 year old is still rear facing; he doesn’t know any different. There’s plenty of room for his legs. He’ll stay there til he reaches the 25kg limit (currently at about 22kg so not sure how much longer). I only know about extended rear facing because a girl in an online group I was in, lost her son to internal decapitation when he was about a year old whilst being forward facing in a crash. 😳😳
I find that mothercare and halfords etc know nothing about rear facing.

We have a little city car (Hyundai i10) with two children rear facing - 2 year old in an Axkid Minikid and newborn in a Joie Every Stage that was the year old's until we got the Axkid. Can't fit either seat behind the driver, so one is in the front passenger with the airbag off, and I sit in the back.

It can work in smaller cars...

I am well aware of the studies I am not stupid, I'm sure some parents think others are stupid or irresponsible for not following guidelines down to the letter.

We had our kids rear facing for 13 months in their first baby car seats then changed to forward facing in their next car seat.

They both suffered with travel sickness from being about 9 months old and the older they got the worse it became. Travelling backwards seemed to make it worse because it calmed down when they faced forward.

It's very stressful knowing your kid is in the back throwing up and coughing and spluttering especially if it's not safe to pull over straight away or worse if you are on the motorway.

With them forward facing I can see them through the mirror and know they are ok-ish while I am finding a place to stop. It's panicking when you can hear awful sick noises and you can't get a glimpse in the mirror to see if they are choking on it or struggling.

They are in age/weight/height appropriate car seats, they are checked before every journey to make sure they are fitted properly and securely. They are always strapped in securely.

It's a judgement call. Like everything else parents have to make decisions about.
Somethings are technically safer but each family and child are different and certain guidelines just don't work for everyone.

I would like to see some pictures of these older kids in ERF seats, that show the position of the seat in front with a tall adult in it.

I drive a decent sized crossover - much bigger than a little hatchback.

An ERF seat will not fit behind DH seat.

OP, what is the solution to this? I have 2 kids. The newborn seat doesn't fit behind DH either.

I'm not able to buy a different fucking car so DFOD.

Around 70% of collisions are frontal, 25% are side impact and 5% are rear impact.

From what I've seen rear facing seats are seen as generally safer in a side impact crash than forward facing seats due to "pre impact braking". Essentially prior to the crash it's very likely the driver will brake and in a FF seat the child's head moves forward out of the protection provided by the seat. In a RF seat the head remains within the confines of the seat even if the driver brakes.

Rear impact crashes are less studied as statistically very few children are seriously injured in rear impact crashes but those that have been done suggest rear facing seats are at least as safe as FF seats in a rear impact crash.

I'm sure people are trying to make fun of the idea, but I actually did not take my DD in the car for a while because she would scream so violently I couldn't concentrate enough to be safe.

So not driving is in fact a valid solution to keeping everyone safe!

I don't know if that was forward or rear facing (its been a while) but I think it covered a significant chunk of the 2-3 year age gap in contention here.....

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland I'm not looking to persuade you to erf if you've made a decision not to but if you are genuinely looking a possible solution to fitting an erf seat, is it possible for your DH to sit in the back behind the driver?

If so you could have the infant carrier in the front seat (with air bag turned off) and then erf seat in the back behind the passenger seat.

He doesn't fit in the rear with me driving.

The toddler seat I have is ERF but can be turned. I use it ERF when we can (although we struggle badly with DS vomitting when rear facing, we are a very motion sick family) but we have to have it turned when we travel as a family. In any case I really would not want a child even in an ERF in the front passenger "suicide seat".

I still haven't seen OP explain how to handle a toddler who vomits so much they nearly choke either

And let's face it. I can't actually clean vomit out of everything every single time I drive anywhere. It's disgusting and unsanitary and the smell also makes me nauseous which is not safe as a driver.

I am a childminder and have recently bought new car seats to rear face children until 18kg. I have read and watched the videos and am horrified that the government doesn't have an awareness campaign for extended rear facing with view to making it law to at least 18kg in a few years.

I know it is a small risk but the outcome is devastating.

Also still waiting on some statistics that aren't based on reducing an unspecified risk by 500%.

I could offer to sell you an expensive widget that would reduce your risk of being struck by lightening by 500%. You would likely question whether you should buy it, given you are really unlikely to be struck by lightening in the first place!!

Its a small risk but the outcome is devestating

Yes but so many things have a small chance of a devastating outcome- letting an older child play out unaccompanied, downhill mountain bike racing, letting your 16 year old go to a party, catching a plane...

It's life really. I certainly wouldnt have condemned mine to years of vomiting misery on the basis that they'd be more likely to survive a devastating car crash.

My reason was because my dd was hysterical in the car. Each and every journey she would work her self up to hyperventilating or vomiting..
She's much better ff. Occasionally gets worked up.
One time I had to do 5 small Journeys and that equated in 5 outfit changes of vomit and changing car seat cover and twice scrubbing the surrounding seats.

Why isn't there pressure on car manufacturers to redesign cars so that the rear seating bench is all rear faces?

Ask yourself why that hasn't taken off - its because many many people get motion sick traveling backwards. Motion sickness often kicks in between age 2 & 3 and it's no coincidence many people give up on ERF around that time.

Speaking as a very carsick child, I would urge people to consider not dragging their kids everywhere in the car as an option....

Every bloody week we would do the 35 minute drive to my grandparents. Every week I'd be puking in the car and spending all day feeling sick and dreading the return journey.

At least consider whether each and every journey you drag your kid on is actually necessary or benefitial to them...if it is, then so be it - but at least think about it.

I really hope OP is equally obsessive about the many other similar small risks that carry equally devastating outcomes. You know, the ones where there isn't a pricey "solution" that can be marketed with scare stories etv

Surely the serious of injury will depend on the direction of the impact? If you are in a head on collision then yes I can see that rear facing is safer, but if someone goes into the back of YOU then those forces are reversed surely and the seat is then no safer than a FF seat?

I also echo what someone else said about being skeptical of the safety of a rear facing OLDER child with legs up the back of the seat - knees crushing chest cavity on impact seems a very real possibility there. Also, sitting cross legged for any length of time is neither comfortable nor healthy from a hips point of view.