Vote on Rear Facing Car Seats

[VickyFord]

Advice sought please. Next week in the European Parliament there is a vote on whether children up to age 3 should have to travel in rear facing car seats. I have a vote. Apparently evidence from Sweden (where they are compulsory) is that these seats are safer if there is an accident. Also being told that studies in UK and US show same... but I think my kids would have kicked up such a fuss that we would have been more likely to have had an accident in the first place. However my youngest is now 10 so I?m probably miles out of date. Views from those with under 3s welcome. Have you read research? do you own a rear facing seat? what do your 2 year olds think?

p.s. I also think the EU shouldn?t be passing rules on car seats, surely we could decide this closer to home, but that is another matter altogether.

I'm not an expert on seats but my parents and I had huge trouble lifting ds once he was around 2 to get him into his rf car seat in their car, as he had to be hefted right over the side of the seat. They're over 70, I have arm problems, ds is a stubborn stocky child.
As soon as we turned the seat round it was much easier as he just needed a nudge to climb in himself, rather than someone having to squeeze him round the car door or contort themselves on the back seat.

Our car is large but there's only just space for a rf seat! Just borrowed a slightly smaller car and our seat forward-facing had ds's legs nearly squashed by the driver's seat. No way would the seat have fit the other way round, and this is an estate car!

So if most people have the same problem, that they'd have to get a new car for a toddler rf seat to fit, I don't see how it's going to be at all feasible to enforce - especially seeing how many people in my area either don't use car seats, or don't strap the child in. Given that traffic rarely exceeds 15mph, and buses don't have safety belts, it's not that high a risk compared to so many other things in life.

I'd like to see more availability of safer seats, but I don't think it should be legally required - it seems to be it would be a very large increased burden on very many people to save perhaps one extra life a year. Clamping down more on unlicensed uninsured drivers and dangerous driving might have more effect for less money.

As I said Notcitrus I have a mini - you can't get much smaller than that and the extended rear facing fitted fine in the front with the airbag off (although I admit didnt try it in the front). I have in last few months only been using the front seat in my car just because the space in the back of a mini is so small to physically get my son out of unless car door opens fully (and in most car parks with so many selfish parents of huge cars and 4x4s parking as if they own the car park!!) this is not possible. So whichever carseat i get i will continue using the front seat.

So if there is plenty of space in a mini for a car seat I am sure that even in your borrowed car it would fit an exenteded rear car seat. You just have to work a little bit harder - but than an extra minute to get seat into car is nothing compared to safety of our precious children!!

our son was in one from age 1 to 2.5. I agree that they can't really complain if it's all they know, but he was in a nanny share with another child facing forward so it did start to be an issue. I wouldn't have cared on that measure alone - his safety comes first - but the seat also was so heavy and difficult to move from car to car and be confident it was correctly installed that we did further research and moved to a Kiddy. (which he and we love.)

If anyone is in the market for a maxi cosi rear facing seat (I have to look up which model - forgot) in great condition and at a great price please message me!

But Hanid, you have one child, the front seat is always going to be more roomy than the back, mini or not.
I have three, and 'trying a little harder' is not an option, three rf seats would not fit across the back of my very large car.

I am a huge fan of rf seats for kids- ds is in a Besafe. These seats should be available in all car seat retailers and parents should be informed when they go to buy the car seat that rf is much safer. However this is not happening. ROSPA or the govt or whoever needs to run a campaign stressing the safety aspect of rf seats and recommending them, then demand will increase and shops will start stocking them. You can't trust retailers to do the best thing for your child or else they would stocka choice of rf now.
If not then compulsory legislation will be the only way to go. For those poor kids who get car sick facing backwards I suppose they could get a doctor's exemption if it was really bad.

At what age does the internal decapitation risk decline (to something like adult risk levels)? I thought it was really only under2s who were at high risk of it.

VickyFord you should ask MN to move this thread to the AIBU topic, or start a new thread there. You will get a more hostile set of responses because of the practical difficulties. And I'm with you about not legislating unless the safety data are compelling (which personally I'm not sure that it is, but you should have up to date study results).

Until recently I had 3 kids across the back and 2 different drivers for our only car. The middle-seat child needed help being seat-belted in, which I think can be very difficult with RF seats either side. Also, we frequently needed to move the front seats to accommodate different leg lengths, which is an issue because many RF models brace against the seat in front and mustn't be moved. And that car (a VW Passat, nice family car otherwise) was not suitable for many extended RF seats due to lack of the right fittings, nor was it possible to modify for a realistic price. Plus the nearest qualified extended RF seller/fitter was 4 hour drive roundtrip away from us. It seriously would be a major inconvenience to be required to have RF seats which... from what I've read, only turn an extremely low risk of injury into a barely measurable one.

I think most consumers have it right by not seeking out RF seats, because an extremely low risk is tolerable, or worth it given the hassles involved to get to the level of barely measurable risk.

I guess all that could change if the new legislation was phased in very slowly, but that's the key. Don't rush this in whatever you do.

I just bought a forward facing seat for my baby. Perhaps I can get a refund?

Now I am thinking I shouldn't use it for at least another year?

Can anyone recommend a rear facing seat for a 9 month and up baby that will fit into a Nissan Micra?

The BMJ issued a report that healthcare professionals recommend to parents to keep their children in rf seats until they are 4. That was in 2009- I would be interested to know if anyone has been told by hv or gp or in an antenatal class about this in the last 2 years. Most parents round here seem bemused as to why ds in is a rf seat.

Yes I have read the research. I read it when DS was 9 months and beginning to be too heavy for his group 0 seat. I believe the research that says RF is safer. I have a rf seat for DS, who is just 3. He is perfectly happy with it, hasn't been noticeably car sick and personally I think it is more comfortable and easier for him to play with his toys than in a ff seat (but probably even if it wasn't I would go for safety first). I hope he is rf for another year at least.

I think it is great there is a vote on it, as I think if there was more market for it and more awareness then pricing would come down, and maybe some of the other downsides could also be overcome.

I probably don't agree with the compulsion. Like so many aspects of parenting, there has to be a compromise sometimes and whilst rf is safest, there are downsides such as (imo) less space in the car, less easy to move the seat from one car to another.

But I would strongly agree with compulsory warning stickers on ff seats in the 9 months to 3 years range saying that rf is safer. Rather like messages on formula saying breastmilk is safer, messages on alcohol saying dont drink while pregnant, messages on toys saying not for under 3 years etc etc.

duelingfanjo... the britax 2 way elite is suitable from 9kg (which your child would need to be if going FF too)
and it will fit in a nissan micra nicely. I know this as another MN'er came and tried mine out in her micra

I hope if it becomes law that they make them cheaper!

I've just looked at the pictures from one of the guys on here and I have to say that the RF seats look incredibly uncomfortable - legroom-wise and also in respect of how upright they are. DH and I both have very long legs and to allow DD any reasonable amount of leg-room and the ability to at least recline enough so that her head didn't fall forward when she fell asleep, it looks like we would have to have our seats so far forward that our knees would be around our ears! We'd have to buy a new car aswell as a new car-seat - could be expensive new legislation!!

In addition, DD would get incredibly travel-sick travelling backwards, as do I and considering that she won't take any medicine (even has to have Suppositories just for pain-relief) the chance of getting her to take travel-sickness tablets is zero.

That said, if it became the law I guess we wouldn't have a choice and I would certainly try it in advance because I could be proved totally wrong!

What is the actual internal decapitation risk? My google-fu only brings up pro-RF campaign sites and nowhere else, so I'm a little sceptical

I'd like to see rear facing seats encouraged but definitely not required. I do not think it is appropriate for governments to be constantly upping the ante and mandating the safest way to do things. Some people value other things above the utmost safety. If we had to use rear facing seats we basically wouldn't be able to take our kids anywhere by car because they won't fit in the cars we have access to (I checked, because I would prefer more safety, all else being equal). I think my kids are better off being able to occasionally go to the zoo or visit their grandmother despite the slightly increased risk of death. I really think this should be my decision not the EU (or UK) Government's.

LLJKK and WidowWadman
Internal decapitation is when the head is thrown forward so fast that it can actually sever or partially sever the spinal cord without breaking the skin. The risk in children, I believe. is from the body being tightly strapped in as per seat instructions. Therefore in a crash the chest stays firmly in place whilst the head is thrown violently forward.
I am assuming the risk is lessened when the child is in a normal 3 point belt as there is more moveability so in a crash one shoulder and the head is thrown forward not just the head. Also by then the head weight ratio is lessened

Maxi Cosi know aboutthis risk as one of their forward facing car seats has an additional head rest which in the force of a crash springs up so the head is not flung back and forth so far. when I asked the retailer if that was to stop internal decapitation he didn't know what I meant and just said it was a safety feature

I'd like to see them more widely available and more choice, but not necessarily required.

I'd actually like to see a scrapping of the bands and a system more like the US one where there are many convertible seats sold, and the law says that children must be X age AND weight before they are turned forward. The convertible seats we have in the UK tend to only be rear facing until 13kg, some even only to 10kg. So they are good if you want to extend the time that your DC can be rear facing over a baby seat, as they tend to have higher backs, but they don't actually increase the weight limit by any. For that you have to buy a specific extended RF seat which are harder to source.

UK regulations currently are that children under 12 and under 135cm must be in the "correct child restraint", which means as soon as they get to 9kg, they can legally go into a FF seat. For babies on the highest centile lines, this could be as early as 4 months.

Which car seat is that, Debs? I've just looked on their website and can't see it mentioned on any of their seats. I know that the Kiddy seats reduce the risk of internal decapitation because they spread the impact over the torso area rather than it all being on the neck.

Yuck :(. There are plenty stories of internal decapitation, many of them older children & adults.

But the good news is that some people have full recovery .

So I guess technically there is no safe age. We should all be travelling backwards, maybe.

This says that the risk is highest before the neck vertebrae fuse, so the highest risk category doesn't reduce for that reason until expected six years old.

NO IDEA if those are valid assertions, though.

LLJKK It is widely considered that travelling backwards is safest in every form of trasvel. Airlines know this but won't introduce it as it would make customers think more about the consequences of a cfrash and they would then feel less safe.

I can't remember the exact make, it was 2 years ago but it was definitely a maxi cosi.

I thinks it's sensible but I don't think it should be an enforced LAW! Some kids will kick up a fuss and some won't...

Some kids get I'll travelling an may be worse going backwards, just like some adults. My mum and DH would rather walk. I hate the idea of potentially forcing my child to far the rear if they didn't want to or feel sick. I think I'll be inthe minority though

My back couldn't cope with lifting my twins in and out of rear facing seats past the age of one.

I admit I have not read the full thread.

I think the issue is very difficult. Yes, it is much safer to have children rear facing for longer and yes, if it is law then prices of rear facing seats will come down and they will be more readily available since they will replace all the stage 1 forward facing seats.

However, what about the issue of space? Are we effectively dictating how many children and how spaced out they are by saying that they have to be rear facing? I am pg with number 3, I can afford number 3, I have a car that fits number 3 in but I would not be able to fit all 3 in if the middle one had to be rear facing too and I could not afford to replace the car. I'm sure everyone can think of numerous families that would suddenly not be able to fit their children into their cars. Unless you want to police the number and age of children of anyone who buys a car then you have to have exceptions by law for where you can't fit them in rear facing. Policing what car families buy is out of the question isn't it? And if you are allowed to put them forward facing if you can't fit a rear facing seat in then the rear facing theng isn't a law at all, people are not going to change their car so they will simply say "it is ok, i don't need to worry about that". Raising awareness is very important, as is increasing the availablility of rear facing seats in this country so that people can make informed decisions but unless we are going to hand out gants for anyone with more than a couple of kids to buy a bigger car then I think imposing it as law is absolutely impossible and fairly pointless.

Difficult. I had my DD in a RF car seat til around 2 and a half. Had to stop because she was vomiting many times a week. Has not vomited since in a forward facing (now 3 and a half).

Perhaps if it's a law it needs exceptions.

Lifting DD into our Britax Two Way Elite RF seat seems easier than into a front facing seat as the car door opens that way and the sides are really low.

If the law works fine in Sweden then with suitable transition arrangements it would work fine here too. Vicky Ford as an MEP why don't you ask some of your Swedish colleagues about how it works in Sweden? You are in a great position to ask them while most of us on MN won't have a Swedish contact to ask.

The EU might as well pass the law if we aren't doing anything about it at home. What are you doing to ensure that sensible laws that the EU wants to pass get passed here instead? Being an MEP and having that attitude is a bit pointless unless you are also involved in lawmaking in the UK.

but indith, doesn't that already happen? some people can't fit 3 forward facing seats across the back of their car. so they have no choice but to buy a bigger child, or wait until one doesn't need a seat, or just not have more kids.

not sure why it would be harder to lift a child in/out of a seat simply because it faces the other way either?