How long did you rear face your child's carseat?

[tlbwriter]

Once again, there is no evidence of children suffering from broken legs because they were RF.

 

[princessmom29]

Once again, there is no evidence of children suffering from broken legs because they were RF.

I get that. Why does it have to be an argument? I wasn't trying to start one. I just said that it is something I wish carseat companies would look at.

 

[tlbwriter]

I get that. Why does it have to be an argument? I wasn't trying to start one. I just said that it is something I wish carseat companies would look at.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue. It's just that you said it was easier for a child to break a leg when their legs were crossed, and I was pointing out that this is not an issue you need to worry about.

 

[princessmom29]

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to argue. It's just that you said it was easier for a child to break a leg when their legs were crossed, and I was pointing out that this is not an issue you need to worry about.

From a phisological stand point it is true however, crossed legs are easier to break. I guess the exercise phys. class I took gave me TMI. I look at something and say, boy that is a way to get hurt. It doesn't help that my DH's masters in in this as well. He does the same thing I do. "don't sit that way, it's bad for your joints" ect.

 

[tlbwriter]

From a phisological stand point it is true however, crossed legs are easier to break. I guess the exercise phys. class I took gave me TMI. I look at something and say, boy that is a way to get hurt. It doesn't help that my DH's masters in in this as well. He does the same thing I do. "don't sit that way, it's bad for your joints" ect.

That may very well be the case, but there has not been a rash of children suffering from broken legs due to being RF, so other factors must be involved (direction of the force, etc.) But even if sitting that way put my child's legs at an increased risk of breakage, I'd do it, because statistically she is more likely to survive a crash.

 

[princessmom29]

That may very well be the case, but there has not been a rash of children suffering from broken legs due to being RF, so other factors must be involved (direction of the force, etc.) But even if sitting that way put my child's legs at an increased risk of breakage, I'd do it, because statistically she is more likely to survive a crash.

I am just wishing we could somehow have both.

 

[tlbwriter]

I am just wishing we could somehow have both.

While we're wishing, let's wish someone could make cars with seatbelts that fit both children and adults, and could rotate to face the rear when needed, so we wouldn't have to deal with carseats in the first place!

 

[jodifla]

While we're wishing, let's wish someone could make cars with seatbelts that fit both children and adults, and could rotate to face the rear when needed, so we wouldn't have to deal with carseats in the first place!

This is a great idea!!!

 

[princessmom29]

While we're wishing, let's wish someone could make cars with seatbelts that fit both children and adults, and could rotate to face the rear when needed, so we wouldn't have to deal with carseats in the first place!

yea, add that to my wish list!! Like a conversion van on steroids!!!

 

[Trixieplus2]

DD is 19 months and weighs just about 22lbs and is almost 31 inches tall. She still rides rear facing as she is still very tiny for her age. To those who extend rear facing, how long did you rear face your child? She is in a Graco ComfortSport car seat which I believe goes to 30 lbs (maybe??) rear facing. We turned DS around right after his first birthday (he was much bigger then her) but we have read alot of research since then and have decided this is best for our family. Did you wait till the weight of the seat? Is the height a consideration for this? Did you turn at a certain age (say 2?)? Just curious how others handled this. Thanks!

Both my girls RF until they were two.They were both pretty average on weight my DD1 is fairly tall but she did fine.

 

[DisneyMomma81]

I have always been bothered by this and wondered about why, if you are intended to leave your child reafacing for extended time, are the seats not desigend to accomodate their legs. These seats are not designed for legs to dangle over the sides, or be crossed in front. It compormises the safety of the seat. It is obviously a less than ideal situation. Why is there no accomodation made for it?

Who says that *other than you*- did you design the seat? As I said earlier DD faced the rear till shortly before her 4th B-day - by that age she could tell me if she wasn't comfy - in fact in other cars between 3 and 4 she did ride forward facing and would complain of her feet falling asleep - cause they're just dangling there.

 

[Derby]

Anyone know if any states require RF past a year old??? Laws tend to produce compliance.

As far as I know, there are no state laws that even state that babies should be RFing. The ones I have seen just say that children need to be in car seats, preferably in the back seat. There is no RF/FFing distinction, unfortunately.

 

[LisaNJ25]

All 4 kids right after their 1st birthday.

 

[princessmom29]

Who says that *other than you*- did you design the seat? As I said earlier DD faced the rear till shortly before her 4th B-day - by that age she could tell me if she wasn't comfy - in fact in other cars between 3 and 4 she did ride forward facing and would complain of her feet falling asleep - cause they're just dangling there.

try the seat manual. They show the proper position of a child ridingin the saet. Non of them show legs over the side or crossed in front as a proper riding position. Also, those raised poitions on the side of the seat seem to me to be intended to keep the child's legs in front of them. Why have them at all if the intent is for legs to dangle off the sides? Really ,do we need to argue about this? Why is it so disturbing to you that I wish carseats accomodated the legs of kids better in rear facing position? why is that a bad thing to try to achieve?? Ireally don't get the venom about it. I am not challenging the idea of rear facing seats, just wishing that children could be abit mor comfortable doing it. My DD HATED having her legs folded up like that.

 

[Trixieplus2]

As far as I know, there are no state laws that even state that babies should be RFing. The ones I have seen just say that children need to be in car seats, preferably in the back seat. There is no RF/FFing distinction, unfortunately.

My state makes the distinctions but I personally think the weight/height should be raised a little.


South Carolina’s child passenger restraint law

Synopsis of law:
South Carolina’s child passenger restraint law requires that:

Children from birth to 1 year old, or who weigh less than 20 pounds, must be secured in a rear-facing child safety seat.

Children 1 through 5 years old weighing 20 to 40 pounds must be restrained in a forward-facing child seat.

Children 1 through 5 years old weighing 40 to 80 pounds must be secured in a belt-positioning booster seat.

Children under the age of 6 are not required to be in booster seats if they weigh more than 80 pounds or if they can sit with their backs against the car's seat and bend their legs over the seat edge without slouching.

Children under 6 may not sit in the front passenger seat. However, this restriction does not apply if the vehicle has no rear passenger seats or if all other rear passenger seats are occupied by children less than 6 years old.

Violators are subject to a $150 fine. This law does not apply to taxis, church, school and day care buses, or commercial vehicles.

 

[DisneyMomma81]

Why is it so disturbing to you that I wish carseats accomodated the legs of kids better in rear facing position? why is that a bad thing to try to achieve??

I won't argue with that suggestion ~ that would be great

 

[Minniemouse07]

As far as I know, there are no state laws that even state that babies should be RFing. The ones I have seen just say that children need to be in car seats, preferably in the back seat. There is no RF/FFing distinction, unfortunately.

Many states have wording in their law that states that car seats must be used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Since there aren't any car seats on the market that allow ffing below 20lbs (it may actually be 22lbs but I could be wrong)...then according to those laws no child can be ffing until at least 20 or 22lbs!

 

[L-Harper]

I am just joining in on this conversation and have only read the first post and this page. I know that in Michigan the law is that the child MUST be 12 months old AND 20 pounds in order to forward face. With that being said, my youngest is 18 months old and is still rear facing. I don't intend on turning him around anytime soon either. He is perfectly comfortable and is above the 50th percentile in both height and weight. He just crosses his legs some. He'll be rear facing until at least 2. I turned my oldest son around at about 18 months old and, while we never had an accident {thank God!}, I still regret it. The AAP is now recommending that children be rear facing until 2.

 

[amylynne01]

Many states have wording in their law that states that car seats must be used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Since there aren't any car seats on the market that allow ffing below 20lbs (it may actually be 22lbs but I could be wrong)...then according to those laws no child can be ffing until at least 20 or 22lbs!

That's the proper use clause. Many seats also have age limits on them, so they say that a child must be 1yr AND 20lbs before using the seat. Most seats have a 20bs minimum FFing limit, and there are a few with a 22lb or 23lb limit.

 

[Derby]

Many states have wording in their law that states that car seats must be used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Since there aren't any car seats on the market that allow ffing below 20lbs (it may actually be 22lbs but I could be wrong)...then according to those laws no child can be ffing until at least 20 or 22lbs!

Either my state really sucks or I was way off in my recall (it's been a while since I looked at them). Thanks for clarifying what I was trying to say!