How do people feel about this campaign to make kids under 4 sit rear facing?

[RareTiger]

Don't get me wrong I understand it's safer, but I also know sometimes it's impractical, for mine there are both fast growers and big kids my just turn 3 year old has been in a high backed booster seat for over 6 months now she 17kg wears 4-5 going into 5-6 clothes, but if the law changed I woundnt be able to use the car for her, now for preschool and shopping? fine a incontinence at times but I would just walk or get the bus I do half the time anyway, but for her speech therapy I would have to stop it the travel would mean if something even a bus is 10mins late I don't get home for my son after school or we don't get to speech therapy (3 hour bus, 2.5 hour train ride one way)
I like the current rules both sets, both sets are for different types of car seats why change something that works?
Even with my son we couldn't find a size 0+ to fit in are car we were struggling to fit him in the size 0 at 6 months old he was the size of a 18month old we had no choice but buy a size 1 forward face, he's now 5 been in a high back booster for 2 years

I think it’s good to make people aware, there can be mitigating factors and then people need to weigh up the relative risks (e.g choking if car sick) but a lot of people just don’t know much about rear facing or why it’s safer. My daughter is tall and we managed to keep her rear facing til 3.5

The problem often isn’t the room for the kids though, it’s room for the adult in front. We had a ford focus which isn’t a small car, and my passenger seat was very squashed by the end

Fair enough if there is space in the car and it's safer. I'm glad it was easier though and everyone just had forward facing after the baby seat and booster cushions by the time they were primary school age ten to fifteen years ago.

The safest thing is to drive defensively and don't have a crash. Most people manage that while their kids are small, though sometimes other drivers are a law unto themselves.

I've never heard of a HBB not using the car seat belt. That's the entire point of them. Otherwise they are just a harnessed 5 point FF seat.

Which car seat is it?

In real life though I sadly see plenty of people not using car seats at all, or using the passenger seat when the back of the car is empty. We can all strive to do better!

I used a Joie 360 0-4 seat so could try rear facing for as long as possible. Didn’t hit the weight limit for a while so stayed in it until almost 5.

Some of the myths for example are that RF kids are automatically unhappy or that it is "more fun" to face forward. And I think these beliefs by parents can be inadvertantly transferred to children and they can start to think that too. In reality I think it is novelty which is fun to children - I remember getting a lift in a particular friend's parent's car which had backward facing seats and thinking it was fun to travel backwards (at least, until I felt travel sick which I did quite easily!) or going in the sideways boot seats in my dad's land rover, or another friend's parent's car which had what we called an "aeroplane seat" in the middle instead of a lap belt - I think it was some kind of built in harness but can't remember.

In terms of budget and space required in the car this varies based on what models are on the market and at what price and so on at any one time - there is just no blanket answer realistically. I would not assume that RF is impossible due to space concerns or budget concerns, because RF seats are not universally bigger or more expensive than FF seats, although there may be some specific scenarios where it is the case. It can be difficult for parents to get accurate info about the range of seats available because most of the time the information you have access to is whatever is in stock in your local high street chain store, which will be mainly isofix/105cm limit seats, and the staff training/knowledge will vary hugely but tend to be more surface level, and FB groups prioritising ERF and ERF only and while you may get very good info there between different ERF models, it's very biased towards ERF and typically whichever are the "current favourite" models as well. No info about FF seats is ever given and some of the claims are exaggerated IMO.

Sometimes people assume that ERF is silly or impractical because they have not seen the Swedish type seats which definitely do accommodate taller children - Swedish children are presumably not shorter than average. In fact the seats are designed quite well with low sides, the ability to set them back from the seat to provide leg room, and so are no less inherently comfortable than FF seats. I think this image (attached) is a great one to illustrate that these seats can be much better designed for older children than people might think - I do think people often imagine ginormous children all folded up inside a tiny infant carrier (which is a funny image! )

And no, I do not think that every child of this size should or will be happy travelling rear facing. But I think it is helpful to see that it is an option even if it is not one that you ultimately choose.

This, mine are 6 foot now so been a long time since they were babies so not paid attention to the latest on this really . I think as long as they are in appropriate car seats the choice as to front or rear facing should be a parents choice. We can’t mitigate every risk of harm to nothing

It'll hopefully make people more aware of the issue. We had no problem rear-facing our kid until he was 6 and he's of average height/weight. The extended-rear-facing seats can be pricey but maybe with increased demand, prices will come down?

Now at 10, he's got loads of friends who have ditched even the backless booster, despite the fact that the seatbelts do not yet fit them safely. That can be the next campaign...

Children's bodies are different to adult ones. The concern is more about how strong bones are and therefore how likely that are to snap under certain types of pressure. Before the bones are fused like adult ones they are more likely to snap under force:

If a child is forwards facing and very upright, in a crash their head is jerked forward sharply potentially snapping their neck. If they are rear facing, their neck is supported by the seat and therefore is less likely to break. Obviously it's not ridiculous to want children to be less likely to have a neck injury!

However of course there will be children who become too big for the right type of car seat early, and that's why they have height, weight and age restrictions, not just one measure. For example my child stopped using a booster at 9 because his head didn't fit under the roof of the car after that! We could legally stop using the booster because he was tall enough not to. (He's 12 tomorrow and 5ft 5)

I’m glad @BertieBotts has already replied to this - voice of reason!

I have no issue with people doing whatever they choose and is safest but I do get annoyed at the lack of distinction between ‘safest option’ and ‘unsafe option’: it isn’t dangerous to FF a child.

Who is running this campaign? The cynic in me wonders if it’s one of those exclusive car seat shops that sell expensive ERF seats.

The Swedes are a taller nation (on average) yet seem to manage to keep their children reared facing for longer.

The evidence is very clear that rear facing is safer.

Hiwever, I don’t think any laws will be brought in, which is a shame as it could save lives.

My son is 91st centile so his RF car seat probably won't last until quite 4, but we'll keep him RF for as long as he fits.

My mam looks after him 2 days a week for me and has had to change her car seat to forward facing this week. It's supposed to be RF to 18kg but my son literally couldn't fit into it anymore (at 14.5kg, he's just too tall), there were no additional recline positions like mine has so he had to be wedged in and she was struggling badly with her back trying to get him into it. It's not ideal, but she only does local trips with him (speed limit of 50kph) so I'm not stressed about it.

I am not aware of any country which requires children to rear face until age 4.

Some US states and Canadian provinces have a minimum age of 2 to forward face - that's the latest I'm aware of.

The Nordic countries follow EU regulations which state children must use R44 seats which allow forward facing from 9kg, or R129 seats which allow forward facing from 15 months. The standard that they used in Sweden before joining the EU had a longer rear facing period but is no longer valid. These countries do have a strong cultural bias towards rear facing longer because that was their norm for a long time, but it is not backed up in law.

I suspect many parents found car seat laws "impractical" when they were first introduced. Wouldn't be without them now though, would we.

We'd be better off reducing/enforcing speed limits, and encouraging active travel.

Why would that be better than safer car seats? You’re never going to be able to control hazards around you, you can control how safe adults and children are in the car?

We have quite a small car (Ford bmax) and comfortably fitted two rear facing seats in until they were about 7. It's so much safer. We had an accident last year, and they were in high back boosters by then, but I'm very glad I'd done my research and got the best reviewed seat in terms of safety. There should be more of a campaign to move them up as late as possible rather than as soon as possible.

It should be pushed more. We will be rear facing for as long as possible. Extended rear facing seats are expensive but they last up to 7ish year in age. I know a few people who paid £2k ish on a pram but scrimp on a car seat, it's crazy.

Currently people seem to think that if a car seat is sold in the UK then it must safe. But some of the seats on the market are shite.

I'm torn on this. I wholeheartedly agree children should RF for as long as possible as it's simply safer.

However, something like a third of car seats are incorrectly fitted. I feel any campaign would be better aimed at that - a properly fitted seat for every child should be the starting point.

Also I'd like to see a campaign highlighting that the majority of accidents happen close to peoples homes. So so many people don't use car seats as "we only do short journeys anyway"

Who is running this campaign? The cynic in me wonders if it’s one of those exclusive car seat shops that sell expensive ERF seats.

This is definitely a correlation, but also, nobody is getting rich selling ERF seats - the market is niche and the profits are tiny. The majority of people doing this are following a personal passion, which is probably why their beliefs come across as so strong. In my observation, it's the belief/passion for RF which comes first and the decision to sell/provide/make car seats comes secondary.

If you want to make money in car seats the way to do that is produce them as cheaply as possible and market the fashion or lifestyle angle. Spending a lot of money on research and development to create a product which is only attractive to a niche market is not going to make anybody rich.

Even with my son we couldn't find a size 0+ to fit in are car we were struggling to fit him in the size 0 at 6 months old he was the size of a 18month old we had no choice but buy a size 1 forward face, he's now 5 been in a high back booster for 2 years

That sounds really irresponsible tbh.
What car do you have? We had an extended rear facing seat in an Aygo. And that was a bigger seat than most 0+ car seats, and had a leg that needed to extend forwards behind it.

I honestly can't get that worked up about FF vs RF. A FF car seat is a car seat, it's legal and has been tested to high safety standards.

Whenever we visit DH's home country (Egypt), I see horrendously unsafe things - like toddlers on the back of a motorbike (obviously with no helmet), tiny babies on parents' laps, children leaning out of sunroofs or riding totally unrestrained in the open truck bed of a pick up truck on the motorway. And the driving is incredibly unsafe, all cars are covered in dents and scratches, safety regulations are non-existent.

I know it's not a race to the bottom, but compared to all that, the difference between FF and RF in a country with MOT tests, speed limits and car seat requirements, is splitting hairs - the relative risk difference is tiny.

I don’t remember exactly how old they were when they swapped because it was quite a while ago, DD1 is driving the car herself now! We definitely followed the guidelines as they were then, but there’s no way a 3 year old could have fit into the baby seat we had, I think they both grew out of it by about 12 months and I don’t remember seeing RF seats for toddlers.

Either way if it’s safer to RF then that’s what they should do, I’d never heard of internal décapitation and that has kind of changed my mind about extended RF being bonkers. Not that it matters anyway because I’m never responsible for transporting small children at the moment!

They probably also drive bigger cars, I'd love to see some get a RF seat into a Fiat 500 or a wee Toyota Aygo.

And in the same breath folk are moaning about mums doing thd school run in a Chelsea tractor.

Mums can't win and it's not just the cost of the seat it's the cost of a bigger car to go with it.

We managed it with an exceptionally tall child (99th centile for height). It's safer. Seemed like a no brainer to us.

I'd love to see some get a RF seat into a Fiat 500 or a wee Toyota Aygo.

We had an extended rear facing seat in an Aygo. Went up to 25kg