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

About time too. It’s very clear that this is way safer. No brainer.

My 3 year old son wears size 6 years clothing. He’s predicted to be over 6”4 as an adult. Crazy long legs. Strangers speak to him as if he’d be in primary school and are surprised when he responds like the just turned 3 year old he is.

I drive a small car and have zero problems whatsoever having him rear facing and he will stay refacing until we run out of rear facing car seat options to accommodate him. It is just insanely safer than front facing. It’s a complete no brainer for me.

A front facing high backed booster seat is completely useless for a 3 year old. In Sweden and other European countries the law requires children to be rear facing up to 4 years old. 18 months in the UK is honestly a joke.

I am such a “live and let live” person when it comes to others parenting choices (bar obviously abusive practices of course) but the excuses for having really young children front facing are really feeble when it is so much safer to have them rear facing and RTAs are a leading cause of death in young children. Just admit you find it easier to your kid front facing so that’s why you do it. Everything else is just fluff. You could have your kid rear facing but you don’t want to.

I say this as someone repeatedly stuck in motorway traffic, on two hour plus journeys, with a child who would scream themselves into a state where they’re struggling to breathe - it was more likely that we would make mistakes on the road, or have a crash as a result of how stressful those situations are. It’s different on a 10 minute journey to the supermarket where you can pull over in a safe place should you need to.

We have a Peugeot 208 and can fit a 360 car seat which our son rear faced in until 4 yrs old so they can fit. And we could still fit in the front seat as well.

Overall I think it is good to increase the rear facing age. When the rules around booster seats came in there was the same situation of pushback but now people would be shocked at someone not using a booster seat. Personally I think there should be a height limit and an age for the rear facing, similar to what there is for booster seats

Most extended rear facing seats go up to 25kg, but obviously depends when you're talking about. Maybe there was less availability if it was a while ago.

I think it's been like that in Sweden for years as a friend mentioned it when she used to visit there and her kids are in their 20s

Good idea, change the law and we start to change both the cultural norm and hopefully also shift the market so there's more choice of decent RF seats.

My older two went into FF toddler seats when out of their baby ones, but know better do better- youngest is 4 and still RF.

I agree.

It needs to be normalised, because it's so much safer.

It's not just a little bit safer, it's a lot safer.

And I think the people that are against it just don't understand.

Imagine your car being shunted from behind with kids in the back.

Rearfacing: kids whole bodies and pressed back into their car seat, force spread across whole body.

Forward facing: the head, and potentially upper body, snaps forward, while the legs fly up to meet them. All the pressure is on the neck.

There will always be parents who say "my 3 year old is the size of a 6 year old, I'm not doing it."

But it needs to be normalised, the message needs to be clear, the risks need to be understood, and the seats need to be available.

A Peugeot 208 isn't a small car though.

This is what I was trying to verbally explain.

Can't understand what the objection could be to this.

I always remember a lecture given by the father of a friend, who was a medical pathologist who had had to deal with a number of air crash situations. His view was to always travel with your back to the direction of travel, as travelling face forward meant you inevitably broke your ankles on impact and therefore, found it difficult to exit the plane. Military planes are often set up in this formation and I admit to sitting facing the back of a train for this reason.

I can see it’s a good idea but I think there needs to be much more done on the number of children in badly fitted/boosters/no seats first.
I kept DD in a car seat as long as possible and then on a booster. It wasn’t usual in DDs primary and there were lots of very small children in just boosters/no seats from quite a young age. I refused to drive one of her friends somewhere as her mum was like ‘she doesn’t like them’.

I worry if you raise the standard/costs you might end up with fewer children using seats at all. How much policing is being done about this I wonder.

If that's the case when I would say the child can't travel safely in cars, full stop.
If the child in question was screaming and sick in a FF car seat too, what would you do? What if they were only like that with a seat belt on, would that make it OK to travel without one?

Other countries have had these laws in place for years and manage.

I think it is safer to have a non-screaming child in a FF seat with no accidents than a screaming child in a RF seat who is in an accident because the driver is distracted.

I think it’s good to have the info but my ds was a puker so if it was law we’d either not travel by car or have to drug him. I remember the celebration we had the first time he was able to take drugs to travel by plane (about 3 I think).

I think it would be more dangerous in smaller cars, even with standard baby seats you often see them right up against the seat infront whether it's because parents don't realise the gap needs leaving, or because there's not enough leg space with the front seats pulled right forward.
Increasing that to 3.5 year olds where the seat headrest will be extended further is going to increase the amount of seats right against the front seats, which is equivalent to going into a solid object when the seat tries to absorb the movement of a crash.

Then why not ban car travel completely for children? After all, they’re much safer not being in a car at all than even being in a RF car seat.

I’m not actually against extended RF at all. It’s just not as cut and dried when you take ALL the risk factors into account as some posters are trying to make out.

It really depends on the seat, and if this were law then you'd expect to see more properly designed ERF seats available. I recently moved my 15 month old from a RF seat where I didn't have space to extend the headrest as far as he needs, to a proper ERF seat which does fit in my small car even up to age 7. It's not as reclined, and it's not sitting on a base, which is why it fits.

Agreed ban all children from cars job done!

Simples!

A more significant impact on road safety would be to make front seats 5 point harnesses.

Got mine in a Nissan Micra 3 door.

What age should they be rear facing until? My DD is only 10 months but I was having this conversation with my parents, I have heard as long as possible, they say 1&1/2

The bigger issue is with those not following the existing car seat laws and young children either not restrained at all or restrained badly e.g. loose straps, seat incorrectly fitted. That’s are where the vast majority of deaths occur. Changing the law won’t help since those people aren’t following the existing one.

A 2-3YO in a good quality forward facing car seat from a leading manufacturer with good ADAC score is safe. It’s not the very safest available but that doesn’t make it dangerous. Just like it’s not dangerous to drive an AYGO even though you’d all (as drivers and passengers) be much safer in an XC90.

I presume the campaign is being spearheaded by some of those facebook groups, which have an (ahem) interesting reputation, and exist primarily to sell expensive rear facing seats for the admin’s business?

I find the excuses pretty feeble, that's all, especially considering other countries manage extended RF, so it clearly can be done.

But if people really do believe they're making the safest choice by not RF then that's cool for them.

I used a rear facing Klippan 18 years ago. I watched the crash test video and decided it wasn't worth the risk. And I was in no way a risk averse mum of a PFB, it just made sense.

Even if it doesn't become law, at the end of the day I hope it raises awareness and makes RF the norm rather than the exception.