Am I silly to be upset with mil for pitting child front faceing in car seat when I asked her to rearrange face?

[Sophie1029734]

Hi everyone my lo is 2. I've asked her since the beginning of time to do rear faceing and have explained how it's safer, prevents death and severity of injury during crashes. She seems hell bent on the idea that it hurts her legs when I've said multiple times it does not after lots if time researching it.

Everytime she has come to give me a lift somewhere it's always front faceing. Whenever she takes lo to the car she goes quick and seems to not one to go there to say bye. A new front faceing seats appaeard in her car, saying it was just another family child's car seat (it isn't) she slipped and said she hasn't used the other one for a while.

Am I silly to be upset after realising shes been ignoring my requests to rear face lo? And knowing she is ignoring my requests and actively trying to hide it Car? Car safety is a huge thing for me and I feel my trusts gone a bit. It just makes me wonder what else other requests are disrespected. I know this may not seem a huge issue for some, so am i being silly.

Seriously? Another one?

The information is all out there. Millions of children in various countries rear face until age six. Does anyone really believe they're all struggling in silence with their poor, squished up legs?

Let's be clear, an ERF (extended rear facing) is designed to be used that way. It isn't the same shape and doesn't fit in the car the same way as an infant carrier or a forward facing seat. It is designed to accommodate children's legs. Do people really think we're all torturing our poor children, forcing their legs to fold up in uncomfortable positions? However what children often do comment on that they find uncomfortable is having their legs dangling in a forward facing seat, which is why they often lift them up to support their feet on the seat and why you can buy separate foot supports for them.

Really? Yet I didn't at any point call you anything like ridiculous. Who was the rude one here?“

I didn’t say you were ridiculous. I said the rolly eyes, proud moment comment was a ridiculous thing to say. Which it was.
proud moment? Er, no. No feeling, of pride or otherwise, one way or the other. Grandchild reached weight at which the manufacturer recommended forward facing, so he was forward faced. End of.

Manufacturers of vodka probably recommend a bottle a day too.

Shifting the subject slightly, I think most people are probably comfortable knowing that car seats are held to a regulation standard to be sold. This is correct, they are all crash tested but the UK government's crash test regulations mean that child car seats are tested in crash simulations at 15mph. I'll say again: 15MPH!. Does that make you feel secure or do you wonder how well your child is likely to be protected in a crash over 15mph? This is a woefully underregulated industry, Fortunately it's changing and legislation is in place meaning children will legally have to rear face for much longer in the UK but it takes years for these changes to happen. Hopefully crash testing an other safety issues will be taken on too.

I don't mean to panic anyone here as there are luckily many car seat manufacturers who do their own testing way above and beyond the pathetic government minimum. These include Joie, Britax and Axxkid for example. The most stringent child car seat testing in the world is the Swedish Plus Test. The seats which have passed this are the safest in the world but do not include any forward facing options.

Well said.

The rear facing seats for older children are differently shaped to baby seats so children are not squashed in them. In fact the ones which accommodate children up to approximately six tend to have the option to fit them with a bit of a space away from the back seat, forming a space there for a footrest.

My 3yo forward faces now, but on a long journey he tends to pull his feet up into the seat and cross his legs, so I would take that to mean that dangling feet are actually the part that is uncomfortable.

Legal crash testing takes place at 30mph. The idea that it's 15mph is a misconception - two cars crashing into each other at 30mph causes a total force of 60mph that is divided by two - 30mph - it's not the 30mph that is divided by two. (In fact it's more complicated because the weight of the vehicles ties in as well - the heavier vehicle will take on less of the resulting force and the smaller more, proportionally).

Also - just because a car seat is tested to 30mph as the legal standard, does not mean that it will definitely fail when crashing at higher speed. Some of the very cheap very flimsy seats produced with nothing other than cost in mind have been known to do this, but it's not a given. It's actually quite a difficult thing to design a product to withstand a 30mph crash with an 18kg child sat in it. Once you've got it to do that, it is likely that it will offer some if not substantial protection at higher speeds as well. Especially the models that are designed with safety in mind because the brand has a reputation they want to protect.

It is true that younger children have more vulnerable spinal cords and they are more likely to suffer such injuries in a forward facing seat, but forward facing seats still provide protection against the two biggest risks in a car - being ejected from the car and hitting their head on things inside the car. (The second dependent on the seat being fitted tightly and the harness being fitted tightly - rear facing seats also do this better). The spinal cord injury risk is a small percentage of outcomes. It's up to anyone to weigh up the risks and benefits for themselves. If you absolutely want to minimise/rule out the risk of that specific outcome happening, then it's beneficial to rear face until age 4. And some people are. If you are not that absolutist about risk, and some people are not, then forward facing might not bother you. IME these two groups of people seem to struggle to understand the other, which makes very little sense - we can understand that people have different attitudes to risk in other areas of life, but car seats seem incredibly divisive, possibly because of the emotionally manipulative way the ERF message is pushed in some circles.

I also agree that it's not about whether the OP's request is reasonable or not (and I think it is) it's about the MIL deliberately going against it and being secretive about it. I do notice though that a lot of people are coming up with reasons why the MIL might be finding rear facing hard - would it be worth a discussion about it? Maybe there will be a way to alleviate the problem so that both parties are happy.

Somebody asked on one of the ERF groups recently whether it would be safer to hold her baby in her arms than use a FF seat provided in a taxi. This is absolute nonsense - being unrestrained is definitely much, much less safe. But a good example of the dodgy messages being pushed by (some of) the ERF crowd.