13mo forward facing in the car

[babybrain77]

I have made a couple of new friends at a baby class. For me and one other, this is baby number 2 and for the 3rd mum, it's the first baby. We were out for coffee last week when the subject of car seats came up as the mum with an older child was wondering about forward facing her 3 year old and was asking what I did with my toddler.

The FTM asked in a shocked way why the older ones were still RF as her baby has been FF since she came out of the baby carrier at 7mo (she's now 13mo). I said babies have to RF until at least 15 months by law and ideally longer. She laughed it off and said they couldn't have a RF car seat in their van.

I have been worrying about it ever since and wishing I had said something more, but I don't know what to say now or whether/how to bring it up again. Please help!

YANBU - raise it again (how?!)
YABU - keep your beak out, it's not your business.

Depends on the car seat they have
Some car seats are weight based and can forward face from 9kg (old regulations)
ISize car seats are age/height based and are supposed to rear face until 15 months (new regulations)

Both regulations are running side by side at the moment so it could be legal for her child to forward face even if its not the safest option.

I'd leave it, even though I agree with you the longer the better for RF. Their child, their choice!

Its not the best. However it is legal if they have an old style seat.

As for saying something... well she knows now.

I wouldn’t but she sounds the type of person to do what she wants she’s made a choice for her baby. I did same back in the day my son is 20, so extended rear facing wasn’t so much a thing but with Ds2/3/4 we did do it for an extended period 3/4 years. My sister still has her 3 year old rear facing. It’s so much safer and he’s quite happy as he’s never been forward facing.

Looks like I'm the one who is woefully misinformed! I thought it was a legal requirement for them to RF to 15 months... definitely won't bring it up if this isn't the case

It is, but only if you are using an ISize carseat

Yes it depends on the seat and which regulations they were made to conform to. Only the I-size seats are FF from 15 months.

I'd say nothing. Everyone does what they think is best for them and their kids. DD is 11 now and many of my baby group mums had their 2.5 year olds in hardback boosters with just seatbelts. Their kids met the minimum weight requirements so it was legal but I was a bit not least because my DD struggled to sit and safely still with a seatbelt at 5, never mind 2.5

www.gov.uk/child-car-seats-the-rules

Tells you about the 2 types of seats you can buy

I wouldn't mention it again. She can do her own research now it's been brought up. If she doesn't want to, that's her decision.

What is your worry? That she is FF such a young baby or that you offended her in some way? I'm not quite sure.

My niece and nephew have been forward facing since 6 months. Both get very very carsick goung backwards and my sister and I both thought that the risk of them vomiting and choking was greater than the risks from them facing forwards.

So far they've come to no harm.

@nothingcanhurtmewithmyeyesshut

My niece and nephew have been forward facing since 6 months. Both get very very carsick goung backwards and my sister and I both thought that the risk of them vomiting and choking was greater than the risks from them facing forwards.

So far they've come to no harm.

The harm is in the event of a crash. Rear facing reduces the likelihood of both injury and death in young children by 90%.

You've mentioned it. It's up to her to look into it if she wants to now.

@nothingcanhurtmewithmyeyesshut

My niece and nephew have been forward facing since 6 months. Both get very very carsick goung backwards and my sister and I both thought that the risk of them vomiting and choking was greater than the risks from them facing forwards.

So far they've come to no harm.

If they are in an accident they have more chance of surviving with injured legs than with an injured head or neck.

My kids are older now (14 and 17) so extended rear facing didn't exist. They went forward at around 9 months as was normal then. No way would I have done it earlier and I doubt they'd have been heavy enough before that either (have to be minimum 9kg to forward face in the older seats).

The danger is the relative heaviness of their head compared to their body when they are younger and a crash could lead to a broken neck due the forces acting on them.

@nothingcanhurtmewithmyeyesshut I doubt that your niece and nephew would have been heavy enough at 6 months for a forward facing seat. They are lucky to have come to no harm but its not an ideal situation.

This is one of those contentious issues that you feel really strongly about once you've researched it. Years ago my two boys faced forward from 15 months onwards because I didn't know any better. 10 years later there was much better information available on the subject and it became extremely clear that rear facing is MUCH, MUCH safer. It's a no brainer. My daughter was rear facing for four years. When the subject came up I just used to tell people I'd done some research that showed it was much safer.

@dementedpixie. There wasn't really much choice in it. They last less than 10 minutes before throwing up and they keep vomiting until there's nothing left or the car stops. There's no room for someone to sit in the back with them. At least this way we can see them when they puke and can help them if they choke.

Mine faced forward from 18 months because that's what seats did. My dd had a motorway accident at 60mph ff and was fine because the seat was properly installed, police said this to me. A badly installed rear facing (because of car design) isn't necessarily safer. The laws don't insist on extended rf

'Worrying about it ever since' is a very odd reaction.

If she can't have a RF car seat in her current van, then she might have taken the view that the additional risk of FF is better than the massive expense of changing her car. Yes, FF is less safe but the chance of her crashing is low so the overall risk is still small.

I have a friend doing similar - she does a lot of journey by train then gets a taxi at the other end. FF seats are much more transportable, so that's what she has.

We all take and manage different risks (do kids scoot without a helmet? Do they visit grandma with a well trained dog?), but RF car seats inspire weird sanctimoniousness.

RF is better but if they can’t, they can’t.

I agree that properly installed is surely more important.