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

While we're all here, can I also just say don't forget to take your children's big puffy coats off before they get in their car seats?

Almost everyone I know has their toddlers rear facing. Many with 3 year olds in ERF seats which will go up to age 7

We rear-faced til four when she outgrew the car seat. And we’ve got a tiny Coke can size three-door car where you have to shoehorn them in. Just take breaks if you’re driving long-distance and they’re uncomfy – which surely you need to do anyway for loo breaks and snacks. Get them out, everyone stretches their legs. And if it’s a short journey then it’s not an issue. (Or walk!)

Age 4 is the advisory, but some parents do it untill age 6. I don't know what age your parents are, but there is a chance that when you were a baby they just put the carrycot across the back seat. Times have changed, so I really wouldn't take car seat advice from them unless they have done reading on the subject.

We rear faced DS1 till age 4, and DS2 is 3yr 3 months. Currently rear facing in my car, the one we use most, but FF in DH's car.

We just couldn't justify and expensive price tag on a ERF carseat that we would only use for 12 months. Bothe our boys are over the 90th centile btw, the 3 year old is in 4-5 clothing and manages fine in his seat in my wee nissan note

And all the parents saying they just couldn't find a car seat for over 20kg to rear face are talking rubbish. They just didnt look hard enough or arent willing to pay the prices

I think it's absolute privilege to say people "aren't willing to pay the prices". I've spent €500 on 2 car seats because that's what we needed and that's the money we had. Buying a car seat RF to 22kg that meets the R129 regulations doesn't make you a bad parent. Not everyone has the same circumstances and most are doing the best we can.

I’d of found it tricky tbh but I had 4,2 and newborn twins at one point, getting a vehicle that’d fit in four rear facing seats would of been a challenge.

But babies are expensive. Plenty of parents pay £1k, or even more, for a pram that will only last maybe 3 years, but then wont spend even a third of that on a safety item to last 4 years?

Well I didn't - I have a hand-me-down hand pram which I got free from a friend. Again, you're assuming people aren't bothered when they might just not have the money. Seats which rear face over 22kg start from €500 where I live, we needed to buy 2 car seats with that budget, only months after spending money on our infant carrier car seat.

They're one of only a few items you can't get safely second-hand either so what are people to do? Most will usually buy the best they can afford.

That's a fair point and yes, most parents are just trying to do their best. And I'm also lucky to only have to buy for one and fit one car seat in my car. However, I feel the law currently misleads parents into believing that the bare minimum set by law is fine, when I don't think it is. Also, the increased demand for ERF seats created by changing the law should bring down the cost of car seats by widening the available options and should encourage car seat manufacturers to invest in designing and making safer car seats, as I agree that ERF car seats are generally more expensive at the moment.

Oh for goodness sake. RF might be better, but only in a very few accident cases does it make a difference. It's not a 'use one or your child will die' situation.

Now that my DGDs are forward facing, like the pp, I think they're much safer in my car (I'm widowed so there's no passenger to be checking on them when I'm driving). When they were rear facing I simply couldn't see what was going on back there and it took my attention from the road. Now I can focus on driving safely.

Its not the car seat, its the car that's the problem in a lot of cases. Many cars are not designed with adequate space to fit the seats in the back, have space for the child in the back seat and room an adult in the seat in front in a way that is safe and comfortable. I think the reason the 'Chelsea Tractors' are popular with families is, in part, because you can actually fit a family in them.

If your kid happens to be the one in the bad accident, though, it doesn’t mean much to you if it’s “only a few accident cases”. My DP is a personal injury lawyer and has seen the aftermath some awful accident cases, and it doesn’t make a jot of difference to those poor people that they are on the nasty end of the statistics, now that they are seriously injured or worse.

Also this thing about not being able to see them is a bit bogus tbh. You can buy RF mirrors for £10 on Amazon that mean you can see the RF kid from the driver’s position.

It may not be that situation all the time, but sometimes it is. If you're ok with that then that's your choice.

You don't get stats broken down quite that cleanly.

UK passenger fatalities age 0-4 are (thankfully) so low that you can't calculate it from a single year because with those low numbers the data is too easily skewed by a single accident. You have to average it over several years. It seems to come down to about 6-7 fatalities per year in these age groups.

It does look like under-1 year olds are underrepresented in this data. Since under-1 year olds are significantly more likely to be rear facing in the UK than any other age group, it's likely that this is showing a protective effect of rear facing. If you look at the last 10 years of data (2013-2023) this is the pattern for fatalities broken down by age:

0 yo: 7
1 yo: 15
2yo: 14
3yo: 15
4yo: 8

It's possible that children aged 1-3 years are more vulnerable, but the other possibility is that children under 1 are likely to be in rear facing seats, and children over 4 are old enough to gain some protection from a seatbelt or booster seat, so children aged 1-3 are more represented because they are more likely to be in forward facing seats and/or in booster seats or seatbelts too early.

If you include serious injury then unfortunately, the numbers are much higher so it is more accurate to look at single years. It seems in recent years it's about 100 children each year 0-4 years who are seriously injured as passengers in car accidents.

Again, children under 1 are slightly underrepresented in the statistics although this is not as stark as in the fatality numbers. It's more like a difference of 30% than half.

However, if you go back to look at records from earlier years then you see a MUCH bigger difference in the numbers of under-1s vs 1yos who are seriously injured as car passengers. The tipping point is about 2016. Anything from 2016 and earlier, the number of seriously injured 1yos jumps to about twice the number of seriously injured children under 1. The data goes back to 2004 and while overall injuries are higher in all groups in 2004 (closer to 200), the pattern is the same there.

That's interesting because it seems to match almost exactly my observation that 2016 specifically was basically when ERF (in terms of rear facing into the second stage seat) became "mainstream" - spin seats were no longer new and novel, they were popular and affordable. The "123 seat" type which had dominated the market since the 2003 law change fell out of favour and spin seats took over. Joie launched basically all of their affordable (sub £100) ERF seats in 2015/2016. Stage 1 of R129 which introduced the 15 month min FF rule was released in 2013 so a lot of seats on the market in 2015/2016 were R129 compliant.

Yes, people in the UK still tend to forward face early on average, but that was the tipping point in my (mainly MN based) observation of it being seen as a normal thing to continue RF at least for a little while into the next stage seat rather than RF being exclusively for the baby stage and the switch made at ~9-12 months. I am surprised but pleased to see such a significant shift in the injury data.

Of course, the shift could be due to something different entirely - improvement in general in car seats (isofix was most likely an improvement for example), safety improvements in cars, medical advances in treating injuries sustained by children in car accidents - something else not thought of.

This is the dataset I'm using to get the numbers: department-for-transport.shinyapps.io/collision_analysis_tool/

I couldn't get this to attach to that longer post but this is also a really compelling graph IMO - it compares fatality rates in Germany to Sweden in the period 2006-2011, when Germans were typically using forward facing seats exclusively after the baby stage whereas Swedes would continue with larger rear facing seats until 2 or 3 years of age before usually changing straight to a high back booster (which was commonly done at about 3 sometimes before, all over Europe, at that time).

The "spike" at age 1 is theorised to be caused by that difference in behaviour and this is the most persuasive thing I've ever seen personally in favour of rear facing longer, particularly covering the period of 12-18 months but preferably longer. It is just astonishingly clear.

This is taken from a report which is no longer online, but the referenced study should still be accessible.

I think it would be fantastic and would probably cause companies to make more options for children who aren’t totally comfortable in the current options and bring down the price. However, I do think more needs to be done in terms of public information and education regarding car seat safety, alongside stricter laws, because some parents just don’t fully understand the importance of following the guidelines or haven’t been informed.

I am a stickler for health and safety though, I understand if there are factors making it harder such as height or price point it might be annoying.

Mine rear faced until 7. One moaned about going forward facing as it’s comfier to read rear facing apparently. The seats went to 25kg.

Internal decapitation was my concern.
I know people say their legs look cramped but I can’t imagine legs dangling from their chair not touching the floor is particularly comfy either. And kids are flexible.

I bought a second hand pram and spent the rest on extended rear facing seats as I didn’t care about the pram as much.

I think this discussion shows where the problems stem from. Rear facing is safest but there are all sorts of reasons why it isn’t always practical and it doesn’t end in death when you face your child forward. But instead of discussions around how to forward face, as safely as possible you’re told you’re basically a murderer!

ERF is fine if you have a big car, you want to spend a fortune on a large ERF car seat, and your children don't mind it. Turned my DD forward facing at 15 months and she stopped screaming in the car. So much safer to drive when your toddler isn't screaming. I also have a small car so can't ERF.

my just turn 3 year old has been in a high backed booster seat for over 6 months now

So even before 3yo?

Far less fun to internally decapitate your kid. They’d be a lot more than unhappy if that happened…

According to @BertieBotts data above, in the last ten years 59 children aged 4 and under have been killed or internally decapitated if we’re going for shock value. So about six children per year. An absolute tragedy for individual families but hardly a foregone conclusion if you face your child forward.

Your parents are most likely referring to the newer regulation R129 which says children must be 15 months minimum before sitting forward facing.

You are correct that as long as possible is better At 10 months if she is still in her baby seat, most car seats for the next stage now accommodate rear facing up to 105cm which is approx 4 years old for an average sized child, but maybe 3 for a tall child. Or you could opt for a Swedish-type seat (which can be bought and used in the UK) which rear face up to 125cm which is approx 7 years old for an average sized child, or 5 years for a tall one.

Not a murderer, just choosing not to prioritise safety and evidence of said safety. A PP made the comparison with campaigns to encourage safe sleeping and reduce SIDS which seems like a fair one. Safety is number one for a lot of parents, it's up to others if they want to prioritise something else.

Mine were rear facing until they outgrew the seats, well after 4. I got my seats from Sweden where children are generally taller than in the UK, and yet are rear facing until four .