For considering forward facing a two year old...

[RowboatsinDisguise]

I recently took DS’s ERF car seat out and gave the covers a good scrub and rinse as with potty training (wee only!) and general life debris they were utterly rank. In the meantime we’ve been using a spare group 1 FF seat. I much prefer it! It’s about a million times easier to strap him in (being heavily pregnant this is a massive factor), he’s happier chatting to me and seeing what’s going on, if he starts shouting I can work out why pretty much immediately... it’s just so much more pleasant for both of us!

Is it really so awful to want to keep him FF? I know why ERF is recommended. I’ve seen the crash tests. I know the stats. But I also know that the overall likelihood of being in a crash remains low and that forwards facing seats do still provide protection. I just don’t know what to do now!

So RF is safer because statistically you're more likely to have impact into the rear of the car. What if you get hit head on? Surely then the reverse is true, and FF is safer?

What if I am rear-ended? Won’t the child be safer forward-facing?

Frontal and side impacts are the most common type of crashes and also the most severe. Rear impact collisions account for only about 5% of all severe and fatal impacts. Frontal and side impacts are the most deadly type of crashes (especially side impacts), and rear-facing children are much more protected in both types of crashes than forward-facing children. In the 5% of severe rear impact crashes that a rear-facing child would be in, they have at least the same amount of protection that a forward-facing child would have in a frontal impact.

The forces in a rear impact collision are also different from the forces in a frontal impact. In a frontal impact, the forces are much greater because the vehicles are usually traveling in opposite directions, therefore the vehicle and all occupants come to a complete stop very abruptly. When you are struck in a rear impact, the vehicles involved are traveling in the same direction, and the vehicle that is hit in the back has room to move forward. The crash force on the occupants is much less than in a frontal impact.

Rear-end crashes are somewhat more common in cities, high density areas, and in stop and go traffic, however these are typically low speed, and not often severe or fatal collisions.

Fuck me RF v FF is the new breast v bottle - tedious and dull.
My kids both FF from 1 year old - perfectly safe and acceptable choice.

What I don't understand is the judgment of those who weigh the risks and choose for themselves to FF at whatever age.

Turned my almost 3 year old a couple of months ago because she kept being sick every time we drove anywhere. It stopped the issue entirely.

Its 5 times safer than something that is an already tiny risk. Public transport is also much safer but I dont see any of you giving up your cars.

Also this. Now the buses and local trains are up to full timetable again we can stop having to go places in the car thank god.

The really bizarre inconsistency is that there's a huge overlap between ERF zealots and attachment parenting - so apparently if I let DS cry for any other reason (say, so we can all get some sleep) it'll permanently psychologically damage him and I'm a terrible parent, but if I do it in the car, even for hours on end, he won't be damaged because he'll know that it's just for his own safety, and it's just a rubbish excuse for me being a crap parent that I'd rather he didn't cry hysterically on every journey?

Op this is the worst question you can ask on Mumsnet because it just turns into everyone piling on to tell you that your a shit parent and a monster who must want their child to die if you ff them because they all think you should rf kids until they are 40. Just do whatever is best for you and your DS. My niece is nearly 7 and she has been ff since she was a baby.

People love to judge about car seats. You should tell them you formula fed and weaned with baby rice just to really let them stick the knife in lol

Both mine FF at 3.5 and 19 months. We are a tall family and physically cannot for a rear faced seat behind the drivers seat anymore.

Turn if you want

Everybody is so safety-conscious when you talk about anything else on MN. But when it's rear facing car seats, the only correct answer is 'Your bubz your rulez, hun! Mine was riding in the car boot since he was a newborn and he's fine!'

@G5000

Everybody is so safety-conscious when you talk about anything else on MN. But when it's rear facing car seats, the only correct answer is 'Your bubz your rulez, hun! Mine was riding in the car boot since he was a newborn and he's fine!'

Wow, we obviously somehow inhabit opposite MN realities... I think you've briefly fallen into mine because if you read this thread it couldn't be less 'your bubz your rulez' unless you're counting all the passive-aggressive 'fine, you choose to rear face them, if you don't care if they die'

It’s a personal choice, like everything in parenting. Tbh if I had a child who was motion sick or cried hysterically in a RF seat then I would change them to FF (provided they were over 15 months). But if the child was happy enough RF and it was only about what was more convenient for me then I probably would suck up the inconvenience to make things (even marginally) safer for my child, and even when the overall risks are low. In both scenarios I’d be putting my child first. But I wouldn’t judge anyone who made a different choice because it’s none of my business!

"13:24chunkyrun

I've never known anyone to rear face a two year old 🤷🏾‍♀️"

The only children I've seen rear facing are very tiny babies. It's only on mn that everyone says they rear face their kids. Some would have you rear facing even though the kids legs are reaching the back window.

My 2yo is FF. She's very tall and I couldn't get her into her Joie 360 without smacking her head on the doorframe. I have fibro and cannot lift her that high several times a day. Her autistic brother hated her being RF because she faced him. So I turned her FF on her 2nd birthday and it's so much easier, she was much much happier being able to see me too. We don't really drive anywhere further than school or the shops, never over 30mph. Everyone is happier. No more head bumps.

Rear facing is safest. Until 4-6 years is best practice. If you're going to FF please use a harnessed seat not a HBB as they really aren't safe until 4 minimum.

At age 4 to 6, my child wouldnt have been able to fit in a rf seat, her legs would have been over the back shelf of the car touching the back window. It would have been child neglect. Not sure was a HBB is, but most forward facing seats have the five point harness until they get to booster seat stage. They also say they should be in a booster to age 13 or 112 cm tall. Mine were way out of boosters by about age 9 or 10, or even earlier. I dont know any kids sitting in a booster at age 13. They are half way through High school at that age and wouldnt be dared seen in a booster seat.

Interesting to see how many extremely tall children mumsnetters have. Cannot possibly fit into a RF seat at 4, 2 or even 15 months. Some RF seats are suitable for up to 135 cm tall children, that would be seriously off the charts for a 2 year old.

DS was RF until 5.5 years. DD is 4.5 and currently RF, and we have no plans to change that any time soon. Most people I know are/were doing RF.

In my experience, the reason they kick off in the car is never to do with the fact they are RF.

In my experience, the reason they kick off in the car is never to do with the fact they are RF.

Well in my experience we tried everything that is recommended in this situation - mirror, toys, giving him my phone with videos on it, taking off the headrest so he could see more out the back window - and none of it made any difference and then we turned him round and it stopped instantly. So I guess different people have different experiences, who knew?

Rear facing seats for 4-6 year olds hang slightly off the edge of the back seat so that they can allow some leg room for the child between the child seat and the car seat. No need for children's legs to be poking out the back windscreen :)

Haha at the AP / ERF comment - this is so true! You absolutely have to take your own situation into account. Being black and white about RF/BF/whatever isn't useful to anybody. Just be sensible!

Also such black and white attitudes cause problems rather than persuading more people to give RF a go.

If someone is worried about receiving a lecture from a car seat support source/page/group etc, they may not seek advice about the use of their FF seat, which might mean they are using it incorrectly, or which FF seat to buy, leading them to buy a poor-performing one or one which is hard to fit correctly.

When people feel they have to justify their use of a FF seat they come out with all kinds of reasons (which might obviously be true in their individual situation) which can turn into general myths such as all DC prefer to FF, ERF seats are cramped, ERF seats are too expensive, don't fit in small cars/with tall drivers, ERF seats are complicated to use, etc. Which is a shame because then people look at these things and think oh ERF sounds complicated, hard, unpleasant, expensive. When it doesn't have to be any of those things.

There was a long running thread on Pistonheads about car seats - one bloke would say a couple of times there's no issue with FF, FF if you want to, RF is safer but nobody else gives a crap about what car seat you use so there's no need to justify it on here. And it seemed to generally be true! As in nobody was castigating each other. Why do we (mums) do this?? People leap on each other and say such ridiculous sentences which don't have any basis in fact.

"Rear facing seats for 4-6 year olds hang slightly off the edge of the back seat so that they can allow some leg room for the child between the child seat and the car seat. No need for children's legs to be poking out the back windscreen"

Yeah because a couple of inches will make a big difference when your childs legs are long. Plus I should imagine it depends on the size of the car and the available space between front and back. If the car seat hangs off the front seat I cant imagine how safe that is. On trying my childs car seat rear facing it literally squeezed in between front and back, bearing in mind there needs to be space for someone to sit in the front passenger seat, or even drive the car.

Rear facing seats for 4-6 year olds hang slightly off the edge of the back seat so that they can allow some leg room for the child between the child seat and the car seat. No need for children's legs to be poking out the back windscreen

DS's car seat was already touching the front passenger seat when rear facing, with the passenger seat quite far forward, further forward than my driver's seat and I am only 5ft 5. It was a compact birth to 18kg rear facing/forward facing seat. Would an ERF seat fit in something like a Suzuki Alto or similar sized car?

A couple of inches does help, though, because it creates a space downwards where the child can bend their legs like over the edge of a chair. I think sometimes people's only experience of rear facing is in the infant seat and so you imagine that but bigger. They are a totally different design. In any case some children prefer to put their legs up anyway, but in the vast majority of family cars there is plenty of space to put them down even when the children have long legs.

Those larger RF seats sit more upright than the baby carriers or spin seats which can rear face, so you can fit them in smaller spaces, including small cars. There is a crunch point if you have a very small car and a very tall driver/passenger, so you might have to make decisions about whose leg room to sacrifice, but sometimes I can't help thinking people are just playing devil's advocate. Plenty of people change their car once they have children because they need more space. And if you struggle to fit an ERF seat in you've likely also struggled to fit the infant seat in before that.

This is an article about erf seats fitted in small cars. Snarky tone not mine. There is a link to an album with more cars included at the end. I would have just linked the album but Flickr is being slow to load for me at the moment.
erfmission.com/you-cant-rear-face-in-small-cars-debunking-myths-4/

The birth to 18kg ones tend to take up more space because they don't have tethers so they need to have the base higher up or a deep recline in order to have some rebound protection.

Child car seat guidance in the UK can be unclear and confusing, and is not widely publicised or promoted.

When my son was an infant, I discovered that I'd had his baby carrier installed incorrectly in the car for months, and I felt horrendous. This led me to look further into child car safety...

He is now nearly 6 and still rear facing. Everyone thinks I'm nuts and I've never even met anyone personally who RF past 2 or so.

But I'm anxious by nature, so I tend towards risk avoidance.

I wonder how long it will be before joint problems in children start to become associated with sitting in cramped-up positions in car seats so frequently when they were younger.

• Or reducing risk, I should say.

YANBU. You have to do what works for you. 10 years ago forward facing was the norm.