Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, your child is at more risk from eating a poor diet and developing all kinds of health issues that can kill them then they are from dying in a car crash. If your child eats a diet that mostly consists of fast food, processed food, etc. the likelihood that he/she will be overweight is pretty high--then add in diabetes, heart disease, etc. and your child doesn't make it past 45.
Accidents are, by far, the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.
See chart, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler
My daughter was turned around on the advice of our pedicatrician at 10 months. She was too long for the car seat. Having her feet locked against the back of the seat during a minor impact could have done permanant damage to her legs/hips. According to our pedicatrician the real concern is does the child have good enough control of their head to face forward. Dd#1 did have, she was too long for the car seat and she was over 20 pounds. The law says one because at one the vast majority of kids have good enough control of their head to face forward. The law had to pick an age. That doesn't mean that some children aren't ready to turn around sooner or that some shouldn't be left rear facing longer. This same doctor kept dd#2 rear facing after she was one. She was shorter and lighter than her sister and lacked her strength.
Your kids are teenagers. Car seats and recommendations have changed with research.
Here's the real issue - the OP saw a photo on Facebook of the child sitting in a carseat, unrestrained. How does the OP know the photo wasn't taken just before buckling the child in?
As to forward/rear facing - it changes ALL THE TIME. When my son was 9 months old, his doctor told us to turn him around. He was too tall - I had brought it up because I had to buy him a new, bigger carseat at six months because of his height. As I recall, the instructions said the child's feet were NOT supposed to touch the back of the seat.
I agree that these changing laws, changing recommendations are used by so many just so they can feel superior to other moms. I, and my 3 siblings, were NEVER in a carseat. Everyone of us survived to adulthood. Then again, I was in a horrible car accident when my daughter was 7 months old and the carseat saved her life. Unless the child is REALLY being neglected or abused (not fed, left alone with tweezers and pointed toward electrical sockets), you should butt out.
Do you REALLY think they don't know, that they haven't heard? You'd have to be a superior kind of idiot to miss all the buzz about carseats these days. So, unless they are so stupid as to require you to call CPS to protect the child from IMMINENT danger, move on and focus on your OWN children more, and OTHER children less.
If you click on the carseat in their store, all it does is link you to amazon, they are not the ones selling the car seats.
Yes, they are the one selling the seats via Amazon, they say so right at the top of their page:
Quote:
Welcome to Car-Seat.Com, the Official Store of the Car-Seat.Org Forums!
Please support the Car-Seat.Org forums when you shop our web store, powered by the support and service of Amazon.com
I'm sorry, but if people are giving information that supports the products they sell, the information becomes a bit suspect to me. I would be very happy to read peer reviewed data on the subject if anyone has links. I could not find any information to support their claims myself in a cursory search.
Accidents are, by far, the leading cause of death among children and adolescents.
See chart, too.
Your kids are teenagers. Car seats and recommendations have changed with research.
Yes, my kids are teenagers but the law is still rear facing until 20 pounds, I forget how many inches and 12 months old. If the reasearch indicated this was problematic, the law would be changed. Trust me, there are enough over zealous people preaching their way is the best out there to make sure it happened if it were needed. It's not.
Very young babies should be rear facing because 1) the most likely potential injury maneuver is an emergency stop which will result in forward deceleration. 2) the most serious accidents are frontal impacts due to the possibility of hitting something going the opposite direction. Once they can control their heads in an impact though, there's no reason to keep them rear facing. Rear facing leaves them vulnerable in a rear end impact. Because they are located closer to the impact point and there is very little structure between them and the impact, they will feel the force of a rear impact more than the force of most frontal impacts. So, turning them around once they are capable of controlling their heads (protects the spine) in an impact is the prudent thing to do. Unfortunately, a rear facing infant is vulnerable in a rear end impact and you often don't even see those coming. It is not possible to position a baby so they are protected in both a frontal and a rear impact. Once they can control their head in an emergency stopping situation, it's prudent to turn them around because you have zero control over a rear impact so you look at the odds of each occuring. As I said, the most likely injury potential maneuver will be an emergency stop so rear facing until they can control their heads is in order. After that, you need to make a decision. You, usually, have, at least a choice of what to hit and the ability to brake in a frontal collision, plus you have the engine between you and what you hit. There's just a lot more there to absorb impact. Of course, head on collisions are the worst by far, and fortunately, not common as impacts go (fender benders are far more likely). And then there are side impacts, spinning your vehicle (likely on slippery surfaces) where it won't matter which way baby is facing.... maybe the prudent thing to do is NEVER put them in a car....I assume you drive a Volvo??? They're designed with crumple zone's around a passenger compartment. If you're stressing over this, you, obviously, don't want to cheap out on the car you transport your kids in.
Seriously, once a child can control their head in an impact, there isn't really an advantage to being rear facing. In fact, if you're not driving a vehicle that puts a lot of metal between your child and the rear bumper, they may be at more risk. Looking at the cars dh and I drove, it was prudent to turn our kids around as soon as the doctor said it was ok. It's a good thing too. I can't imagine the impact dd#1 would have felt from the back seat when we were rear ended. I ended up slamming my head into the head rest. Fortunately, she was forward facing. I say her doctor made the right call. BTW, I have never been in a frontal collision when I was driving. All things considered, I think forward facing as soon as they were physically able to control their heads made sense for us (both vehicles had small trunk compartments putting very little between our kids and anything that hit us from the rear).
Like it or not, you take risks every time you put your kids into a car. You're just splitting hairs over which risk to take. You look at the type of driving you do, the type of vehicle you drive and the most likely impact you'd be in and make a decision. Either way, you are at risk of choosing wrong. You could be rear ended by a truck with your children rear facing and you could walk away while they don't. Pick your poison.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 12-31-2011 at 08:23 AM..
Yes, my kids are teenagers but the law is still rear facing until 20 pounds, I forget how many inches and 12 months old. If the reasearch indicated this was problematic, the law would be changed. Trust me, there are enough over zealous people preaching their way is the best out there to make sure it happened if it were needed. It's not.
Very young babies should be rear facing because 1) the most likely potential injury maneuver is an emergency stop which will result in forward deceleration. 2) the most serious accidents are frontal impacts due to the possibility of hitting something going the opposite direction. Once they can control their heads in an impact though, there's no reason to keep them rear facing. Rear facing leaves them vulnerable in a rear end impact. Because they are located closer to the impact point and there is very little structure between them and the impact, they will feel the force of a rear impact more than the force of most frontal impacts. So, turning them around once they are capable of controlling their heads (protects the spine) in an impact is the prudent thing to do. Unfortunately, a rear facing infant is vulnerable in a rear end impact and you often don't even see those coming. It is not possible to position a baby so they are protected in both a frontal and a rear impact. Once they can control their head in an emergency stopping situation, it's prudent to turn them around because you have zero control over a rear impact so you look at the odds of each occuring. As I said, the most likely injury potential maneuver will be an emergency stop so rear facing until they can control their heads is in order. After that, you need to make a decision. You, usually, have, at least a choice of what to hit and the ability to brake in a frontal collision, plus you have the engine between you and what you hit. There's just a lot more there to absorb impact.
I'd recommend buying a Volvo. They're designed with crumple zone's around a passenger compartment. If you're stressing over this, you, obviously, don't want to cheap out on the car you transport your kids in.
Seriously, once a child can control their head in an impact, there isn't really an advantage to being rear facing. In fact, if you're not driving a vehicle that puts a lot of metal between your child and the rear bumper, they may be at more risk. Looking at the cars dh and I drove, it was prudent to turn our kids around as soon as the doctor said it was ok. It's a good thing too. I can't imagine the impact dd#1 would have felt from the back seat when we were rear ended. I ended up slamming my head into the head rest. Fortunately, she was forward facing. I say her doctor made the right call. BTW, I have never been in a frontal collision when I was driving. All things considered, I think forward facing as soon as they were physically able to control their heads made sense for us (both vehicles had small trunk compartments putting very little between our kids and anything that hit us from the rear).
Like it or not, you take risks every time you put your kids into a car. You're just splitting hairs over which risk to take. You look at the type of driving you do, the type of vehicle you drive and the most likely impact you'd be in and make a decision. Either way, you are at risk of choosing wrong. You could be rear ended by a truck with your children rear facing and you could walk away while they don't. Pick your poison.
State laws may not have caught up yet, but the latest recommendations are age two or or until they exceed the height or weight limit for the car seat, which can be found on the back of the seat.
"A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention found that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or to be severely injured in a crash if they are rear-facing. Another study found riding rear-facing to be five times safer than forward-facing.
"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body," said Dennis Durbin, M.D., F.A.A.P., a pediatric emergency physician and co-scientific director of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of the policy statement and accompanying technical report. . . . And it's completely fine for their feet to touch the seat back, or for their legs to bend. "
State laws may not have caught up yet, but the latest recommendations are age two or or until they exceed the height or weight limit for the car seat, which can be found on the back of the seat.
"A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention found that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or to be severely injured in a crash if they are rear-facing. Another study found riding rear-facing to be five times safer than forward-facing.
"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body," said Dennis Durbin, M.D., F.A.A.P., a pediatric emergency physician and co-scientific director of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of the policy statement and accompanying technical report. . . . And it's completely fine for their feet to touch the seat back, or for their legs to bend. "
State laws may not have caught up yet, but the latest recommendations are age two or or until they exceed the height or weight limit for the car seat, which can be found on the back of the seat.
"A 2007 study in the journal Injury Prevention found that children under age 2 are 75 percent less likely to die or to be severely injured in a crash if they are rear-facing. Another study found riding rear-facing to be five times safer than forward-facing.
"A rear-facing child safety seat does a better job of supporting the head, neck and spine of infants and toddlers in a crash, because it distributes the force of the collision over the entire body," said Dennis Durbin, M.D., F.A.A.P., a pediatric emergency physician and co-scientific director of the Center for Injury Research and Prevention at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of the policy statement and accompanying technical report. . . . And it's completely fine for their feet to touch the seat back, or for their legs to bend. "
My youngest is only 6, and the rules have changed even since then. I believe the weight limit on the infant "bucket" seats has gone up too. 6-8 years ago babies seemed only to stay in those seats for a few months. Now I see babies in them past a year. I think the limit used to be 20 lbs. I see some with a limit of 35 lbs now.
My youngest is only 6, and the rules have changed even since then. I believe the weight limit on the infant "bucket" seats has gone up too. 6-8 years ago babies seemed only to stay in those seats for a few months. Now I see babies in them past a year. I think the limit used to be 20 lbs. I see some with a limit of 35 lbs now.
Apparently they have. I just looked. My last grandchild was turned around before 12 months because of his size and he's only 5. I'm really glad that they hadn't changed the laws when dd and I were rear ended. She might not be here today if she had been rear facing (we were hit by a vehicle that was larger than us (I was driving a Probe) that came flying off of the expressway exit ramp...we were stopped at a light...witnesses said he never even hit his brakes.). As I said, unfortunately, it is not possible to position a child seat so the baby is protected in both a frontal and rear impact. You're really just picking your poison here. In my 30+ years of driving, I have yet to hit anything. I've been hit several times. My vote is still to turn them around once they can control their heads well enough in most forward emergency maneuvers because I can't avoid rear impacts.
I'll just be glad our accident happened before they changed the law to 2 for turning kids around and go hug my dd... I think parents need more choice here. We know the vehicles we drive, we know our own driving habits and our pediatricians are in better position to determine our children's abilities than a law. I know I'm far more likely to get into a rear end accident than I am a frontal accident so I want my kids turned around as soon as they can handle their heads in emergency maneuvers. Either that or I want to drive a tank. I want as much metal as possible between my kids and anything that could hit us from the rear. People don't realize that because there is so much less metal in the rear of a vehicle compared to the front that a much lower speed impact can cause injuries you woudln't see in a front impact. The saving grace in a rear impact is that you are thrown back into the seat...not so for a rearward facing baby. My guess is they're going with statistics. They'll sacrifice kids to rear impacts to save those in frontal impacts. You can't protect them from both and, when you think about it, for every rear impact, there has to be a frontal impact (the car that hit you)...it's just an odds game. I really think my driving record should be considered. I'm 0 for 3 in frontal impacts. I did back into a guy...but that was a fender bender and a rear impact. I've been rear ended twice and had someone total my car while it was parked in front of my house....again, rear ended. Some of us are safer drivers than others. That should count for something.
Apparently they have. I just looked. My last grandchild was turned around before 12 months because of his size and he's only 5. I'm really glad that they hadn't changed the laws when dd and I were rear ended. She might not be here today if she had been rear facing (we were hit by a vehicle that was larger than us (I was driving a Probe) that came flying off of the expressway exit ramp...we were stopped at a light...witnesses said he never even hit his brakes.). As I said, unfortunately, it is not possible to position a child seat so the baby is protected in both a frontal and rear impact. You're really just picking your poison here. In my 30+ years of driving, I have yet to hit anything. I've been hit several times. My vote is still to turn them around once they can control their heads well enough in most forward emergency maneuvers because I can't avoid rear impacts.
I'll just be glad our accident happened before they changed the law to 2 for turning kids around and go hug my dd... I think parents need more choice here. We know the vehicles we drive and we know our own driving habits. I know I'm far more likely to get into a rear end accident than I am a frontal accident so I want my kids turned around as soon as they can handle their heads in emergency maneuvers. Either that or I want to drive a tank. I want as much metal as possible between my kids and anything that could hit us from the rear. People don't realize that because there is so much less metal in the rear of a vehicle compared to the front that a much lower speed impact can cause injuries you woudln't see in a front impact. The saving grace in a rear impact is that you are thrown back into the seat...not so for a rearward facing baby. My guess is they're going with statistics. They'll sacrifice kids to rear impacts to save those in frontal impacts. You can't protect them from both and, when you think about it, for every rear impact, there has to be a frontal impact (the car that hit you)...it's just an odds game.
Maybe you should look at the research instead of guessing, since you feel so strongly about this. I'll accept the research.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My daughter was turned around on the advice of our pedicatrician at 10 months. She was too long for the car seat. Having her feet locked against the back of the seat during a minor impact could have done permanant damage to her legs/hips. According to our pedicatrician the real concern is does the child have good enough control of their head to face forward. Dd#1 did have, she was too long for the car seat and she was over 20 pounds. The law says one because at one the vast majority of kids have good enough control of their head to face forward. The law had to pick an age. That doesn't mean that some children aren't ready to turn around sooner or that some shouldn't be left rear facing longer. This same doctor kept dd#2 rear facing after she was one. She was shorter and lighter than her sister and lacked her strength.
