MIL has bought a forward facing seat for 2 year old?

[Elisabeth3468]

I want to start by saying my son is 2 and is rear facing and has a specialised seat that rear faces up to 25kg. I plan on keeping him rear facing until he grows out of the weight/height limit which will probably be aged 5. I know how much safer it is.
My MIL knows how I feel about rear facing and I've provided her with all the facts and information but she doesn't seem to listen or want to know any better? That's fine because he never goes in her car anyway as she hasn't had a seat.
Until the other day she turns up and has bought him a forward facing only seat, brand new. It was off a colleague so highly discounted so she paid next to nothing but still it's forward facing and does rear face at all.
She keeps saying it's fine to forward face at his age etc. but she knows why I choose to rear face.
I feel really awkward now and I don't want my son to go in that seat.
I can't understand why she's done it. My mum has a car seat for my son and it's the same as ours and she's taken on board that the safest is to rear face.
I said to MIL I will buy a seat for her car if she wants one. She rarely looks after him anyway so confused why she's bought a seat.
AIBU?
What shall I say to her? I feel like she thinks I'm ungrateful.

I had a puker so I ff dd when she was turning 1.

Unpopular choice and several have had a go at me on mumsnet for it but it was necessary to stop the vomiting episodes.

So how does that work on a long journey then - don't they get cramp or aches & pains? How often do you have to stop the car to let them stretch their legs? I can see how a kid of 2 can do it, but some posters are talking about kids of 5 or 6.

Besides, not everyone can sit cross-legged comfortably. I've never been able to sit like that for more than a minute or so - it is physically painful. Sitting on the floor during school assemblies were purgatory for me for years and years.

So you'd rather your grandchildren were at much greater risk of death in the event of an accident, just so you can see them? Why don't you just use a mirror, like most parents who use rear facing seats use to still be able to see the children? Besides, you should be using a rear facing seat if your grandchildren's parents say so, and if you won't, then you shouldn't be driving them anywhere.

I had all these daft comments about legs not fitting and 'poor' DD still RF and not being able to see them, 15 years ago when we had to go to a special needs provider to get a extended RF seat in the UK even though in Europe they were in normal use. At that point everyone I knew was turning their baby forwards age 9 months! And everyone thought I was neurotic keeping her RF longer.

For those who still don't get it, these are seats that are designed for this age/size group. People aren't putting a 5 year old in a baby carrier. There is plenty of space for their legs and they can see out of the back and side windows. If you're desperate to be able to see them you can get a mirror that clips on the headrest but frankly if you're driving safely you shouldn't be looking at your kid anyway. Rf is proven to be way safer in the case of an accident. So it's amazing how many parents want to argue about it/ignore the evidence. If you're still not sure, look up crash test dummy videos that show the difference.

OP stick to your guns, your kid, your decision.

Video clearly showing outcomes in a crash RF v FF

For people asking where their legs go, this is 5yo 50th percentile height DD.

She could put her legs further into that gap, or cross them, or put them on the back of the seat. She has never complained of being uncomfortable in her car seat and she isn't one to hold back if something's not right/comfortable 😅

I would be more concerned in how they climb into it than legs bunched

Not if the child is in a rear facing car seat. It's about relative forces.

This image shows the forces at work after a 30mph rear impact. (This test was used to create safer rear facing seats, so modern seats perform better, I've included it just to show the forces at work. Rear facing is still by far the very safety way for your child to travel)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/study-of-rear-end-crashes-finds-head-injuries-from-rear-facing-child-seats/5PSHBNEAOKYDKU34FEE3O6O3N4/

You would manage that easily. If you can’t fit an ERF seat in your car then you can’t fit a forward facing seat in your car as you need a 55cm survival gap anyway.

Wouldn’t it be the case that rear facing is safer in any impact where your car is traveling forwards?
So being rear-ended at a roundabout is still going to make your car jerk forwards and rearfacing would be safer than ff. if you reverse your car into a post then the kids will be jerked towards the rear of the car, which would put more pressure on toddlers’ necks in a rear facing seat. But you reverse at 2miles a hour and crashes where you’re traveling forwards are generally higher speed and higher impact.

It's about reading the research. Again that's a US study and a lot of the research was based on the speeds of their highways. "Young children" also were those under two, usually upto 15 months.
If a over two year old child is being kept rear facing to drive at 20-30 mph in the average UK town and has travel sickness, it's bloody cruel. So actually it would be useful to have both seats and choice which, depending on the journey.

Agree with you, my child's safety trumps upsetting anyone, and there is lots of evidence that shows how much safer rear facing is. My nearly 5 year old is rear facing in an axkid move.
Rear facing is often more comfortable for legs as ff legs just dangle. If you imagine sitting on a bar stool with no leg rest it can get incredibly uncomfortable quickly.
I'd also check she understands to remove coats etc too!

I assume they have to cross their legs. Seems to be a mumsnet thing, toddlers are all forwards facing where I live from what I can see.

No, because it's about relative forces.

I don't really know how to explain it any better. I'm not a teacher.

Maybe picture every item in the car and imagine them all travelling in the same direction at a common speed. Now imagine a new force appears and acts upon just the vehicle and those items strongly attached to it. The items that are not strongly attached will try to continue to move at their original speed. The car and strongly attached items will accelerate rapidly in the same direction as the new force. The child's head and arms are not strongly attached so they will try to continue moving in their original direction and speed. In a rear impact collision with a RF child this creates the illusion of the child's head snapping away from the car seat as for a split second the car and (properly tethered) car seat are effectively accelerating away from the child's head and other less securely restrained things. Of course, what is actually happening is that the car, car seat and child's body is moving at a different speed. The child's head is just continuing at the same speed it was before the impact. Then comes the rebound, which is what I think might be confusing people?

..and this is probably why I'm not invited to parties 😂

@DrJonesIpresume I think this answers your question.
By the way I couldn't (still can't) cross my legs at school but toddlers' joints are far more flexible

If she creates grief perhaps get her son to explain your joint (?) decision to her ?

My DH is 46. MIL told us recently that when he was a baby she drove alone from the UK to Italy to meet FIL, who was working on a ship and had docked there. DH was in a carry cot on the back seat the whole way! 😱

Mine are adults and my personal preference is to be able to turn around in the front seat, passenger or driver and be able to see them to communicate with them.

I would prefer a forward facing seat and perhaps that's why your mother in law if she's a similar age to me, wikis also like to be able to see the child?

I don't see this issue we have a mirror so I can see him the whole time I am driving ??

You would turn around in the drivers seat to communicate with children in the back of the car? I personally prefer our two to be safer, I also prefer drivers to be looking at the road.

'You would turn around in the drivers seat to communicate with children in the back of the car? I personally prefer our two to be safer, I also prefer drivers to be looking at the road.'

Obviously when the vehicle is stopped and to use the rear view mirror.

🙄

I see what you mean, but isn’t the rebound (when the kid is pulled back into their seat by the belt/harness moving faster than they are) the bit that’s going to have an impact on the neck/spine? Unless the kid’s head hits something first, which I guess is what’s happening in that study you posted?

Another who doesn't understand rear facing for older children. Do they sit with their legs crossed or pulled up for 200 miles?

They both have an impact on the head and spine, but a typical rear impact collision allows for deceleration over a distance (since both vehicles are travelling in the same direction, albeit at different speeds) so the rebound in this case is relatively gentle compared to the acceleration at the moment of the collision.

No. Legs can go anywhere.