Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Rear facing?

67 replies

mamaof2girls · 29/07/2021 15:10

Age did you keep your little ones rear facing? Daughter 3 in November and still rear faces with no issue so don't plan on moving her forward yet was just wondering the average age people move them?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
ivfgottwins · 31/07/2021 06:29

It seems to be the new competitive parenting / tendency towards superiority parenting issue from what I've seen

DD1 went forward facing at 18 months. My twins will be a similar age for the reason that rear facing seats are much bigger and we simply can't accommodate all rear facing in our car. Also DH is 6ft4 and needs the seats all the way back whether he is a passenger or driver so there simply isn't the room

If you've got a big SUV / Range Rover / car downside large size type car then im sure you wouldn't have the same difficulties

Pugsley87 · 31/07/2021 06:30

Until 5.5yrs in an axkid. No way I would have turned any earlier, and will do the same with my younger child. No complaints ever.

Tickly · 31/07/2021 06:32

Just over 3 - both very tall and outgrew the rear facing seat so were getting complaints about being uncomfortable. We'd have waited longer if we could have.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

edgeware · 31/07/2021 06:35

DS is 3.5 and rear facing in an Axxikid. When I read up on the reasons to rear face I was surprised, I don’t know why it isn’t law to!

Starjammer · 31/07/2021 06:36

DD is 2.5 and still rearfacing and will be for as long as she's within the weight limit for ERF seats. She's perfectly happy as she's never known anything else.

CornishTiger · 31/07/2021 06:40

I’m one of the original campaigners from over 10 years ago to make rear facing known about in the UK. A group of us came together online and Well it’s worked but still a long way to go.

My 4.5 year old has nearly maxed out his 25kg axkid. I’m gutted. His sister was the same.

Caspianberg · 31/07/2021 07:04

I don’t think rear facing seats need a huge car. Ds is rear facing in our crappy old corsa. If he faced the other way he would still need the same space for his legs.

NatalieH2220 · 31/07/2021 07:07

My 4.5 yo is RF but I don't know any others his age that do. No plans to change him around any time soon.

The law on car safety is shocking in the UK but some people are adamant that if it's the law then it must be safe 🤷‍♀️

lboogy · 31/07/2021 07:11

Nearly 2. Dd is very tall for her age - in the 99th centile and her legs were forced into the frog position so I changed to ff

NoMoreTractors · 31/07/2021 07:18

DS still is at 4.5. Will continue to for another year until my 5 week old needs his Axkid Minikid.

mayblossominapril · 31/07/2021 07:20

18 months when he was too big for the first seat and could escape from it. I needed two seats so bought a which Best Buy forward facing to see if it stopped him escaping and whilst he could get out he didn’t. I decided that forward facing was safer in our circumstances than rear facing with an anti escape mechanism on.
I think dd will fit in the first seat until she is at least 18 months possibly longer.
Interestingly at dd recent 1 year check the HV did ask me if dd was still rear facing

Wingingitsince2018 · 31/07/2021 07:29

I wanted to rf DS until 18kg, but it has ended up happening earlier at nearly 3, 15.5kg, after an absolute nightmare car journey to Dorset where we were in standstill traffic after already driving 4 hours and DH span him round in an attempt to stop him being so upset as nothing else was working. Cue a meltdown when we then tried to go back to rf! I am still a bit annoyed at DH for doing it as DS was generally fine with rf, why wouldn't he be when it is all he has known!

FTEngineerM · 31/07/2021 07:38

@SirVixofVixHall

Mine were rear facing until they grew out of the seats, as they were designed for tall Swedes it took a while, I think around seven or eight. Everyone is safer rear facing, well apart from the driver.. Grin
Is it safer all the time, though?

DS1 is only 13.5m and is on isofix so I can’t actually change him yet legally but I keep thinking about it in quite some depth.

27% of impacts in the U.K. are rear impacts and I couldn’t find U.K. figures but American ones gave an average side impacts account for 23% so.. in my mind that is 50% of the time orientation doesn’t make a difference.

A rear ended impact with a rear facing seat is the same, for force distribution, as a forward facing seat and a forward facing impact.

Child restraints and crumple zones blah blah are about increasing the impact time and therefore reducing the impact force on their tiny frames. If rear facing seats are only safer in a front impact, that’s 50% of the time. Another stat was that 75% of adult injuries come from rear impacts, that confirms that if you’re facing the opposite way to the impact you get injured more often. I’ve read lots of ‘you just need to rear face it’s safer’ from lots of places, almost everywhere. But I’m trying to understand why..

SamMil · 31/07/2021 07:47

3.5 in an axkid minikid - she'll stay rear facing until she outgrows it.

BertieBotts · 31/07/2021 07:57

DS1 about 18 months, but he is 13 now and it was considered weird/extreme back then. These days I'd definitely RF longer than 18 months. I moved him into an impact shield seat because at the time it was shown that they had lower neck loading, which is what I was worried about with FF. However newer evidence has come out about them and it turns out they are no more protective overall than a normal forward facing seat because they have higher instance of ejection and of abdominal injury, which isn't detected by crash test dummies. Ejection because if you crash the seat directly head on they don't come out (and this is how lab tests are typically done) but they do when you do an offset crash test (where the corner of one "car" hits the corner of the other - much more realistic in terms of how head on collisions go). And abdominal because until recently there were no crash test dummies with abdominal sensors. Even now, they are separate dummies so most crash tests aren't performed using them.

DS2 was just over 2, but I wish I'd pushed it a bit longer. We have a Joie 360 Spin for him and I started a new job which finished at about his bedtime and DH would come to pick us up. He started to get frustrated about being in the car seat and me sitting in the back didn't always help so I suggested putting him FF occasionally if it was really bad. I kind of meant it as something to do as an occasional one off, but DH preferred it massively and would drive him around like that all the time. When I was in the car it made me really anxious. Possibly a failure of communication, rather than anything malicious on DH's part. We kept him RF for long/high speed journeys but after a while there was always some reason/excuse even for those and I gave up and got a better rated FF seat when he was about 2.5. He was also 16kg then so getting close-ish to the limit of the Joie anyway.

DH drives, I don't, I don't police him enough to dictate how he has the car seat when he's alone with DS. He did say he would have turned him back RF if I really insisted/felt very strongly about it but by the time we had that conversation I felt like it was too late because DS2 absolutely loves FF. He is now nearly 3 and I feel completely happy with him FF. I chose the seat carefully (Britax, isofix, top tether) and ultimately he is older and less vulnerable now. I know he would be safer rear facing, but I don't personally think life is always about doing the safest possible thing, it's about doing something that you're happy with the risk level, which works for your family and situation. Other people really do prioritise safety and probably think my reasoning is flimsy - that's OK - we all have different priorities.

DS3 is due around the same time of year and I think I will insist on RF until at least 2.5 to get him through that third winter, and then maybe look at his weight - if he's close to 18kg (predicted to be bigger than DS2) then we might switch him to DS2's current seat, which is harnessed to 21kg, or keep DS2 where he is and invest in a 25kg RF seat. Or I might be able to drive by then in which case he will be RF in my car.

We live in Germany now and I think ERF is much more common here, I often see toddlers rear facing out and about, I think there are 3 ERFs at our nursery, which isn't huge, whereas people in the UK seem to say they don't know anyone else who does ERF! It's also so much more accessible these days everywhere, with the spin seats being sold in high street stores and the modular seats like Maxi Cosi etc having a rear facing option now. Much better than when DS1 was that age when it was just impossible. I probably could have realistically kept him RF to a maximum of 2 using the Britax First Class Plus.

EssentialHummus · 31/07/2021 08:05

Around 1. This is one of those "MN versus reality" topics for me.

RidingMyBike · 31/07/2021 08:12

We rear faced DD until 4yo - and that's in a small old car! We had to have a Joie Steadi as that was the only one that would fit. Car too old for Isofix.

SharpLily · 31/07/2021 08:14

"27% of impacts in the U.K. are rear impacts and I couldn’t find U.K. figures but American ones gave an average side impacts account for 23% so.. in my mind that is 50% of the time orientation doesn’t make a difference.

A rear ended impact with a rear facing seat is the same, for force distribution, as a forward facing seat and a forward facing impact.

Child restraints and crumple zones blah blah are about increasing the impact time and therefore reducing the impact force on their tiny frames. If rear facing seats are only safer in a front impact, that’s 50% of the time. Another stat was that 75% of adult injuries come from rear impacts, that confirms that if you’re facing the opposite way to the impact you get injured more often. I’ve read lots of ‘you just need to rear face it’s safer’ from lots of places, almost everywhere. But I’m trying to understand why.."

@FTEngineerM It doesn't make any difference if the impact is from the front or the rear, the safety of rear facing seats is based upon the direction in which the car (and its occupants) is (are) travelling at the time of impact, so forward safing is only safer if the car to be hit is travelling in reverse at the time it is hit, and then equally it makes no difference whether it is hit from the front or the rear. I don't know if I've explained this properly!

Essentially whether a car travelling forward is hit from the front or rear, the impetus on the car seat is the same and this is what makes rear facing seats safer. Of course for a lateral impact in theory the risks are the same, however in my experience ERF seats have been more carefully designed for safety and usually contain more safety features to protect in those circumstances than many FF seats, which seem to have been designed to be just about legal.

Your statistic that 75% of adult injuries in accidents come from rear impact kind of proves your point- adults are almost always forward facing...

Basically if 23% of impacts are lateral, that's the grey area. 77% of accidents must therefore be front or rear and rear facing child seats are safer in both cases.

ivfgottwins · 31/07/2021 08:15

@EssentialHummus

Around 1. This is one of those "MN versus reality" topics for me.

Yeah I agree - I've seen a few of these Rear facing threads lately - I just can't see how you'd fit them in a bog standard say Ford Focus - they are much bigger as the upright bit leans well over the footwell so if you don't have an expensive large car I can't see how you'd manage to have a tall driver who needs the seats all the way back

I have a Ford family car - with twins - each one in an isofix behind the passenger/driver and a 5 year old in a slimline seat in the middle seat

Even with a rear facing baby car seat (the ones you get that attaches to a pram system) my DH struggles to drive as his knees are on the steering wheel and it's just not safe

At least with a front facing the whole seat sits on the seat - the only overhang into the footwell would be the kids legs

BertieBotts · 31/07/2021 08:32

The Nordic style ones don't overhang that much, they are sat at a much more upright angle so you get very little overhang. The spinning ones do tend to overhang, because the isofix on the base and the anti-rebound bars take up more space. And the Joie ones that fit using a seatbelt like an infant carrier overhang quite a lot because they have to be really reclined like an infant carrier, which obviously takes up a lot more space when the seat accommodates children up to the size of an average four year old.

Here is an example of a Nordic style seat (Klippan) which is barely overhanging the back seat at all:
www.flickr.com/photos/153076285@N05/37242673114/

But in addition, under the car seat regulations for FF seats, there's an expected tolerance for forward movement. Essentially when you crash test a seat there is a bar placed at 55cm in front of the seat crease and if the crash test dummy's head hits this bar it's considered to have collided with the seat in front and the seat fails the test. 55cm isn't particularly long - it's about level with the edge of the back seat, but because car/vehicle seats in general tend to lean back, sometimes the front seat can actually overhang the edge of the back seat. This isn't safe for forward facing, because it means your child's head is within that allowed tolerance level, and may impact the seat in front. For the newer i-size seats the tolerance is a bit stricter (50cm) but if you're very short on space, rear facing can be safer as the seat shell itself provides a bit of protection from the front seat.

A lot of cars do actually have the space to do either.

BertieBotts · 31/07/2021 08:41

ERF seats have been more carefully designed for safety and usually contain more safety features to protect in those circumstances than many FF seats, which seem to have been designed to be just about legal.

I don't think this is quite true. Sure, all of the really budget/generic seats are forward facing because that is what is popular, but I don't think it's a case that all ERF manufacturers care loads about safety whereas FF manufacturers don't give a shit. There are companies making really good FF seats out there. FF never compares to RF in terms of crash safety, but it's just physics. It's not because the seat is shitter. You can have the most basic RF seat and it offers more protection than the best designed FF seat simply because it's cradling the spine and keeping the child's head, neck and spine in alignment.

They don't really know why RF seats perform better in side impacts, but they do - one theory is that it's because drivers tend to instinctively brake before a collision, even if the collision is on the side. When you brake, all passengers move forwards, which means that forward facing children are being pushed forwards out of their seat (and therefore out of the area of side impact protection) whereas rear facing children are being pushed into the seat shell and between the side impact protection.

However this doesn't really explain why the same seat when tested RF and FF (such as the ones which can be lifted up and clicked into an isofix base both ways) perform slightly better for side impacts when tested rear facing in a crash test situation, where there is no pre-impact braking because it's not a human "driving". It might be that the rear facing seat places the child closer to a stronger part of the car in comparison to a forward facing seat, but I'm not even sure that comes into the test - some are performed in half a car but it's only ever half, so I'm not sure that pillar has the same structural integrity.

FTEngineerM · 31/07/2021 08:43

Thanks for replying @SharpLily

It doesn't make any difference if the impact is from the front or the rear

It definitely does, the fact that maybe the car is travelling forward at the time just reduces the force applied. There are two rear facing impact scenarios:

  1. front car is stationary
  2. front car is travelling forward (including retardation)

In either scenario if the front car is impacted from the rear then the bodies inside will be dragged forward due to the acute change in velocity (sorry for crudeness but I think that best explains the forces direction) meaning their bodies/internal organs will be pushed towards the back (just the opposite to when you crash forward into a wall you’re flung forward). The force will just be lesser in the moving vehicle in scenario 2 since it already had some positive velocity at that point, scenario 1 had zero. Therefore the change will be greater in scenario 1.

Either way though, a rear impact results in a positive velocity in the front cars direction, this is exactly what head rests were designed for, to stop the driver/passengers necks breaking in a rear impact as their heads flung backwards.

The 75% of injuries are from rear end stat holds, the complexity in understanding comes from figuring out why that number is large. Is it because there are more minor injuries therefore pulling the figures up? Is it because there’s less design into increasing the impact time? Is it because people figured out they could get a few grand without any real ‘proof’ of injury? Is it because the engine and all it’s constituent parts is actually fantastic at increasing the impact time?

Once that can be understood at present it just adds confusion to rear facing, because when we ‘rear face’ ie rear impact, we come out injured more often.

FTEngineerM · 31/07/2021 08:46

You can have the most basic RF seat and it offers more protection than the best designed FF seat simply because it's cradling the spine and keeping the child's head, neck and spine in alignment.

@BertieBotts is this to do with the tilted position of the seat? Are FF generally more upright and therefore ‘slouched’? Or is it something else?

MindyStClaire · 31/07/2021 09:11

About two, partly because of travel sickness, and partially because the seat didn't fit behind the driver rear facing and DC2 came along so one of them needed to be on that side of the car.

Twizbe · 31/07/2021 09:53

10 months and 15 months. 10 months was pre law change.

We moved early because we physically couldn't fit them rear facing any longer. We have an extended rear facing seat but we're a tall family. In order to get the head rest at the right height, the front seats needed to be positioned further forward. My husband was unable to drive our old car with the rear facing seat behind him. And I barely fit into the seat with it behind the passenger. He couldn't fit in the passenger seat at all.

We changed cars to a bigger one but still don't all fit in with rear facing seats.

I always think it's important to say that while rear facing is 'safer' forward facing isn't 'unsafe'. Like all things in cars safety is about more than the seat. If the driver cannot be in a proper driving position that's unsafe. If the driver cannot concentrate because the child is screaming then that's unsafe too.

Swipe left for the next trending thread