... to wonder why more people don't buy rear-facing car seats for children over 1 year?

[FrozenNorth]

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I'm just curious as to why I'm the only one amongst my acquaintances to have bought a rear-facing car seat that should fit my DD up to the age of 4 years?

I realise that the government guidelines / laws don't say much about the fact that it's far safer to stay rear-facing beyond the initial group 0 seat, but a few minutes' internet research and a couple of crash-test videos on YouTube were enough to firmly convince me that it's the way to go. In Sweden it's recommended to rear-face your child to the age of four.

So, if you chose to forward-face your child at an earlier stage, what was your rationale? I know, for instance, that the rear-facing seats may not fit in smaller cars. They tend to cost more and they are harder to get hold of. Not a single large store (e.g. Mothercare, Halfords etc.) in the UK sells them.

In case anyone's interested in the evidence behind rear-facing vs forward facing, here's a few links:

Why consider rear-facing?

Safety benefits

The British Medical Journal recommendations

Buyers' guide and list of UK retailers selling rear-facing seats

YouTube video showing crash test footage

Sorry about all the links. This is something I feel really passionately about and I feel so angry that major UK retailers don't supply the safest possible seats for our children.

Wishingchair - thanks.

" "pigletmania, I personally feel that paralysis via internal-decapitation is less good for bones than squashed legs"

What alarmist bullshit. You should feel ashamed of that sentence. "

Why is it alarmist? I admit car accidents are VERY rare. But they kill more children than anything else, which is why we use car seats in the first place. And internal decapitation really is the key cause of paralysis in these accidents. I'd already posted a sensible evidence-based link earlier on in the thread, so decided to summarise my feelings more bluntly and I agree I did it offensively (sorry pigletmania). But just because something is alarmist or offensive does not mean it's not true. Rear-facing is GENERALLY safer: an uncomfortable truth.

I like DD facing the front as if DH is driving i talk to her a lot.
I have one child who took years to persuade to look at me. I like to be able to see her face whenever possible.

I don't like the preachy tone of some of the posts - especially the paralysis comment.
I hate fear based parenting

That volvo rearfacing seat does look better than the one the OP linked to - there's more room for legs, and I assume that as the seat seems to sit further back, the child would be able to see more.

However, I also agree that the 'internally decapitated' comment was unneccessarily alarmist, unless backed up by reliable statistics on the number of under 4's who suffer this injury in forward facing car seats each year.

Well, you either agree it is alarmist or you don't Frozen North. It was a sarcastic, sanctimonius comment and you know it. You have had plenty of good replies as to why people don't choose rear facing car seats for older children - so why don't you stop preaching to people who have made different choices to you.

I don't think there is a very large DVT risk to toddlers of sitting cross-legged. After all, many schoolchildren sit cross-legged for several hours a day.

Well yes the rear facing car seat might not be right for every child or family especially if the toddler/preschooler is on the tall/large side, also some people do not often make motorwar journeys in the car and do not use the car much so have to factor that in. I dont drive and use the bus, there are risks there to, no child seat or seatbelt, driver braking hard buggy (got brakes on) nearly going flying across the bus, or if dd is on my lap or in a seat we nearly go flying too.

I'm in Canada and you can easily get seats that rear face up to 65 pounds. I don't have time to link but you could try Sunshine Kids Radian, it's the narrowest seat going, parents use it for multiples.

It would be nice if they sold the volvo one in the shops unfortunately it only comes with the car and is probably designed specifically to fit for the Volvo. We mainly do local driving (the buses are atrocious in Milton Keynes) and everthing is spread out so dh has to drive if we want to get somewhere locally. As for motorway driving we only do that a few times a year to london (hardly a big journey) and dd is over 3. Yes it would be good to have alternative stats for the numbers of chidlren injured or killed due to forward facing seats.

OP - you sound smug and preachy. How old is your dd? Perhaps you should read the "when I have kids" thread of the day before you sound off about what you believe to be your superior safety choices.

Babies are biddable, toddlers are not. My ds used to spend what seemed like hours lying on the back parcel shelf to avoid getting in his (ordinary) car seat. I think if I'd tried to get him to sit in a rear-facing one he'd still be on that parcel shelf now (aged 11).

Okay, I can't find those stats so I'll take the comment back. The rearfacing.co.uk website does explain pretty well why this kind of injury is more commom in younger children - head is larger proportionate to body. An OP explained this well too. But as for fear-based parenting ... car crashes are something I'm scared of. Very very rare but scary. So in this instance I do think avoiding injury matters even more than seeing your child's face. Sorry to be preachy and I do appreciate everyone's views. Didn't post here expecting to be agreed with

We wanted one - tried out the Brio Zento and a few others. But our car is tiny and two-door, and it just wouldn't fit properly. I also felt that, since the RF seat braced against the back of the seat in front, and (in a two-door car), that seat is built to flip forward, it wasn't ideal.
We went for a Kiddy Infinity Pro instead, which we've been very happy with. If we ever got a different car, I would look again at RF though.

DD1 is 20 months. DD2 is 8 weeks. Already having tantrums (DD1 that is). She does love her carseat though - waves at people through side / back window. Totally agree that I do sound smug / sanctimonious in some posts, but think we can all be a bit like this about things about which we care deeply. I've really appreciated hearing people's views on why rearfacing isn't right for them - has helped me understand my friend's points of view. Have been bfing at keyboard so sorry if sound abrupt too.

i wish i could afford one, my dd is 13 months and still rear facing in her britax first class and will be until she is 13kg

"I admit car accidents are VERY rare. But they kill more children than anything else, which is why we use car seats in the first place."

If something else (I don't know, lightening strike) killed more children than anything else, would it make using rearfacing carseats less important?

I digress. Withdraw all the other variables and rearfacing seats are preferable. Take other variables into account (such as the danger of the driver being distracted by a vomiting child) and choosing to use a front-facing seat isn't so bad.

A lot of parenting decisions are about weighing up acceptable risks. What is an acceptable risk for me will be completely unacceptable to others. I did look into the whole rear facing thing when dd was younger and decided that on balance of risk and practicalities we would put her forward facing at 14 months. To me it's like saying x amount of children are killed or injured falling off climbing frames every year. Some parents may decide to never allow their dc on climbing frames because they'd never forgive themselves if anything happens. The rest of us will accept the risk and allow them to play, taking whatever precautions we think are necessary and appropriate, and hope the worst doesn't happen. Those parents who don't allow their kids to play may look on in horror at the neglect of those that do, but that doesn't make them any better parents. The worst things about being a parent are having to make and live with these decisions but also having to deal with other people judging you for the decisions you make.

A lot of parenting decisions are about weighing up acceptable risks. What is an acceptable risk for me will be completely unacceptable to others. I did look into the whole rear facing thing when dd was younger and decided that on balance of risk and practicalities we would put her forward facing at 14 months. To me it's like saying x amount of children are killed or injured falling off climbing frames every year. Some parents may decide to never allow their dc on climbing frames because they'd never forgive themselves if anything happens. The rest of us will accept the risk and allow them to play, taking whatever precautions we think are necessary and appropriate, and hope the worst doesn't happen. Those parents who don't allow their kids to play may look on in horror at the neglect of those that do, but that doesn't make them any better parents. The worst things about being a parent are having to make and live with these decisions but also having to deal with other people judging you for the decisions you make.

Oops, sorry

Okay - thanks all for your views. I've been trying to answer people's questions about why I made the choice I did by explaining my own rationale. Stated several times that it's not right for everyone. Also stated that statistical rather than situational safety is never going to be the only variable for a family to consider. Not judging anyone, but clearly you still feel judged. Certainly have never described using a forward facing seat as bad. So will bow out now before I cause anyone any more offense, and you can continue putting words in my mouth if you'd like.

I find some of the arguments on here very strange.

The legs being squashed - have you ever put your child in one of these seats and had a look at the amount of room? I know a number of people with them and have never seen a squashed child.

The child being bored, well being in the car is boring. If the adults are forward facing in the front you are not sat looking at the child anyway, can only have a look in the mirror or the occassional turn around if you are the passenger. If there are older siblings then rear facing will be less boring as the toddler is facing the older child. If your child gets that bored and you are the passenger then you can sit on the back with them and face them if they are rear facing.

As for the my two year old is the size of a four year old thing, this has no relevance to rear facing or not. If your child is too big for a rear facing seat then they are too big for the same stage forward facing seat and you need to look at the next stage seat.

I'm not sure about the travel sick one, my DD has been travel sick in her rear facing seat occassionally (but not for a while) and DS never has been and he is forward facing, but DD could have been forward facing and still have been sick, who knows? Plus children get less sicky as they get older too.

I think a big retailer should stock these so people can actually have a look at one in their car and make an informed choice.

Actually if you had just retracted the stupid paralysis jibe then people would be less annoyed .

People make choices based on the values and life experiences. My family circumstances make face to face contact very serious .
your comment
"But as for fear-based parenting...car crashes are something I'm scared of.... so in8 this* instance I do think avoiding injury matters more even than seeing your childs face..." ( my emphasis)

is rude and uniformed.
You say 'in this instance' but you mean in your circumstances because, in my situation, face to face contact was very important. But you treat your circumstance andchoices as if they are universal. Which is arrogant and nonsense.

We got a mirror similar to this www.toysrus.co.uk/Babies-R-Us/Travel-and-Pushchairs/Car-Seats-and-Boosters/Car-Seat-Accessories/Easy -View-Car-Mirror%280021724%29 so I could see DD in her rear facing seat.

I had read about the internal decapitation thing - something to do with babies' head size relative to their bodies I think - obviously it's not something we want to think about very much.

Upshot is - FF carseats are safe, RF carseats are safer in some circumstances.

The Kiddy Infinity or Kiddy Comfort FF seats are also supposed to be better in an accident because they have a barrier across the front, rather than the 5 point harness so the whole head/chest goes forward on impact, rather than just the head.

If I were to have another child I'd really consider getting a rear facing one. But I didn't find out about them until DD was about 3. So I already had what I'd bought, and turning her back would have been unpleasant for her after having spent so long facing forwards.

sorry for a thread hijack but can i just ask a question please?

if children are safer in rearfacing seats does that also mean they are safer in MPV cars in which the very back seats face rearward? i am thinking the likes of estate cars that have those fold down seats in the boot that face the back window.

I wouldn't have thought so Booy. What if the accident involved someone driving or being shunted into the back of the car? I would never put a child in one of those seats, it always makes me nervous when I little kids so close to the back window like that.