Can we talk about the new carseat guidelines in the US? The AAP just recommended keeping kids rear-facing until age 2. Before this, it was common for people to turn their kids front-facing at age 1, but the new guideline says rear-facing until age 2 is far safer.
Here's a link to the whole story.
Before we start talking about it, let's just go under the asuumption that OF COURSE all of us want to do what's safest for our kids.
Those of you in countries in which you've been keeping kids rear-facing for longer already, please weigh in on how the experience has worked for you.
My older son was always very big for his age (99th %ile for both height and weight). I'm not sure that when he was 2 there was a rear-facing careseat that he would physically have fit into. What would we have done?
I'm also dreading having to keep my younger one in a booster for years and years until he hits the 85 pound weight limit, which could be a long time for his lanky self.
Just logistically, this is going to be tough for some parents with kids who are at the extremes of size.
What is your car seat/booster seat experience?
I have to say that we had heard we should keep our little one rear-facing as long as possible, and yet we turned him around the second he turned one year. I was outraged to read in the NYT article on the new recommendations that parents generally turn their kids around because they view it as a "milestone". Milestone! I turned my kid around because he screamed his head off every time we were in the car. We need to take long car trips, and couldn't bear the screaming. Face-forward, no more screaming. Many many toddlers hate to be backwards; it makes them sick, among other things. While we will probably follow the new recommendations with #2, I just wanted to say that the issue isn't convenience or not caring or whatever. (I know you all know that - I just need to vent w/r/t NYT.) I wonder what the danger level is of listening to your child scream bloody murder as a distractor. (I mean, how safe can it be to listen to a child scream? I cannot think when he's screaming.)
I feel you on the lanky kid issue. My #1 is short and light - he'll clearly be in a booster until he hits puberty.
I'm eager to hear recommendations from those who have car-seat-hating kids.
Posted by: Erin | March 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM
My second son will be one on Thursday. We were so very much looking forward to turning him! He is in the 90+ percentile in height and weight, and maneuvering him into the car seat is getting harder and harder. My first was so much happier and comfortable when we turned him, and it made getting him in and out of the car a much more pleasant experience that we were happily anticipating turning number two this weekend. I knew that some recommended rear-facing for as long as possible, but I was going to happily ignore that. I can't easily ignore these recommendations, so we will keep him read-facing for at least another year.
@Erin, I had the same thought when I heard what the NYT assumed the reasoning was. Milestones? Not hardly. Has more to do with my back and my ears and my sanity.
Posted by: eep | March 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM
I'm thinking they should do the recommendations based on height/weight rather than age.
Posted by: mo | March 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM
I always want someone to weigh the risks of >1 year-old facing foward against the risk of a driver distracted by her rear-facing, screaming child. My son HATED being rear-facing and fussed and screamed constantly. That's not safe, either.
Posted by: Erica | March 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM
Yeah I'm dreading leaving my son until 2 now. He HATES facing backwards! He's 14 months and we've not turned him yet, but we were thinking about doing it soon. The sun is constantly in his eyes, and he doesn't like not being able to see me. Now we have to endure nearly another year of misery in the car? :( Of course I'll do it because I want him to be safe, but it sure makes his and my life much more unpleasant.
As for the booster seats, that I'm actually not convinced is the best reaction to the problem, but I suppose unless recommendations change in 8 years when my son gets older, I'll try to follow it anyway. I've read that the boosters still don't make the seatbelts right for kids. It seems like a better solution is needed from car manufacturers, though I don't know if one will be forthcoming. I also can't imagine asking a pre-teen to sit on a booster seat! I'm interested to hear from those of you with older kids about what that experience is like.
Posted by: Jen | March 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Yeah, another one here who turned because the 95th percentile Little One didn't fit into the rear-facing ones. What are you supposed to do?
Posted by: charlene | March 22, 2011 at 12:04 PM
I posted a link to new regulations on my Facebook page yesterday, only with a comment that my kids are still too small (at 18 months) to face forward by the old 20 lb guideline. I was rather shocked by the feedback I got, it all seemed very defensive.
I'm making the best decision for my children, I hope everyone else will make the best decision based on the information and options they have available.
I will say that by these standards my mother-in-law should still ride in a booster seat.
I am wondering if years down the road this will seem overreactive or if we will feel about this like we do about putting babies to sleep on their backs.
Posted by: Fun Mama | March 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM
A.) I would invite the AAP to suggest a RF car seat that can be used that long in a mini cooper. Our average height 9-month-old's toes are already grazing the seat. :/
B.) we are also blessed with a baby that is happy to be in the car seat... For a maximum of 20 minutes. Unless he is tired, in which case it's more like 5 minutes. Then: the screaming. Oh god the screaming. Driving back from a Yosemite trip when he was 5 months old was 3 hours of solid earsplitting screams. We went on vacation again when he was 8 months old hoping he would have chilled out... nope. By day 4 we had to decide either to not leave the hotel or just turn the damn seat around. Wenturned the seat and not a sound. It seemed to us that facing the seat forward was safer than trying to drive with the incredibly distracting upsetting screams. Now I guess we are just going to avoid car trips until he is a year. God help us if it was two years!
Posted by: Jess L. | March 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Hmm, i should read the articles before posting. It looks like they're saying "when you reach the height/weight limits of the seat," which sounds reasonable.
Still, I agree with all the others that it must be safer to have a forward-facing infant than one who screams his/her head off. We thankfully didn't have that problem, but it sounds horrible.
Posted by: charlene | March 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM
I don't know where my daughter is in terms of %tile, but she exceeded the height (head sticking out over the seat) in her 30lb max rear-facing seat. We switched her to a front-facing seat a couple of weeks ago. She's 22 months old. Recommendations notwithsanding, I'm not going to search for a rear-facing seat that will accommodate her height.
Posted by: Sherry H. | March 22, 2011 at 12:11 PM
I gotta admit, I had a big moment of "WTF" when I read about this yesterday. First, these are just recommendations, right? Whether individual states change their laws to be in accordance with these guidelines remains to be seen, but until they do, I don't believe this is required.
That said, I hope this doesn't become another one of those things we use to judge other people...("Oh, she must not love her kids because they're not in a 5-point harness anymore...")
As for the rear-facing until 2, I'm still thinking WTF?! My son, now 5, was pretty average height for his age, but at a year, his legs were crunched up against the back seat. He hadn't come close to the weight limit for his infant seat, but he was uncomfortable when rear-facing.
Then he had a Britax, which I think is weight-rated up to about 60 lbs (which he is nowhere near), but his (not very long) limbs were sprawling out of that thing recently.
So now he's in a sturdy belt-positioning booster that has a head support and a LATCH. At 42", the shoulder strap of the seat belt is in a proper position, he's a lot more comfortable, and he loves the "grownup" seat belt. I have no plans to go back to a 5-point harness.
Posted by: Lisa | March 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM
My son is almost 22 months and still rear facing. He is average height, and yes, he bends his legs, but it is not the end of the world.
I know I used to think he hated being rear facing, and he used to cry in the car a lot. If I had switched him foward facing when he outgrew his infant seat (safe up to 32 pounds, but his head became taller than the back of the seat), which was around 14-15 months, I would have thought that he liked forward facing more.
The honest truth, however, is that he just became more OK with being in the car around that age. He stopped crying. He now loves the veiw from the rear window. So for those of you who say that your kid hates being rear facing, I would just try to wait it out. I think there is more of a developmental issue with car seat hating that coincidentally peaks and then resolves around the age that most people make the switch.
Our only issue now is that it can be really hard to get him into the seat if he doesn't want to. Pretty much I just have him crawl into it himself, so if an uncooperative mood strikes, it is almost impossible to wedge him in there...
Posted by: Jessica | March 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM
I was also annoyed with the "milestone" remark.
My 18-month-old son is still rear facing. I really feel for him as he tries to crane his neck around to get the same view as his 3.5-year-old brother.
Older brother, by the way, is a peanut and is still under the max rear-facing weight in his big convertible car seat. But there's no way I'm turning him to face backwards. The revolt would be overwhelming.
I do wonder, too, what to do about the fact that younger brother is very tall and thin for his age. He's going to be folded up like a paper crane back there before he hits the weight limit. He's going to stay rear facing, but we're all going to hate it.
Posted by: Jillian | March 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM
Grrrr - lost a big post. In short: turned our twins around at about 18 months (they are 4yo now), when my daughter hit the 20 lb mark, because she regularly got carsick. Forward-facing + Benadryl (on pedi's rec) eliminated vomiting. (Benadryl on its own, while she was rear-facing, was not enough.) I do not know for sure, but I imagine that there was some added risk of aspiration/choking if she vomited while in a rear-facing seat in a moving vehicle.
As for car seat safety in general - sure, rear-facing is safer (arguably EVERYONE except the driver should be rear-facing), but it's also important to use the seats correctly. I'm not just talking about installation. Two pretty common errors - shoulder straps emerging above shoulder level in a rear-facing seat (they should be just below shoulder level), and kids wearing puffy coats/snowsuits, or any highly compressible outer layer - can result in a dangerous amount of slack in the straps. Drives me nuts every time I hear a parent talk about how s/he can't be bothered to put coats on/off each time they go in & out of the car, or they are worried about the kids being cold, or (BIG RED FLAG) they have to adjust the straps based on which coat the kid is wearing. I've pretty much given up on trying to change anyone's mind, though.
Posted by: Shanna | March 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM
"I will say that by these standards my mother-in-law should still ride in a booster seat."
Hahahahahahahaha. My grandma, too.
Posted by: Moxie | March 22, 2011 at 12:20 PM
I had a tiny kid - we listened to the advice and didn't turn her until she was both 1 and more than 20 pounds, which turned out to be more like 14 months than 12 - but jeez, I was so happy when I could turn her. I had originally planned to leave her rear-facing for as long as I could, but OMG, the screaming! The puking! She still gets carsick, at age 4 in a booster seat, but it was so much worse rear-facing (although I guess, because she wasn't talking yet, I can't be sure if she vomited from crying or if she was crying because she felt sick or what). I was so horribly distracted by the crying that I definitely felt that turning her was warranted, plus I had to frantically pull over more than once because she stopped crying abruptly after vomiting and I was afraid she'd choked on her own vomit. I hated not being able to see her easily, too. Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the only one fretting about this. I'm not particularly defensive about it: I have no doubt (I have NEVER had any doubt) that rear-facing is safer on its own, but there has to be some kind of formula that takes the screaming and vomiting into account, right? I guess I'll just have to hope that if I ever get around to having my second, that he or she will be the laid-back baby I tried to order last time.
Posted by: Eve | March 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM
My children are all tall (95th+ percentile) and were flipped at 1 year and I would do it again in a minute. I have no doubt that it is safer for a child to ride rear-facing. It would also be safer for an adult to ride rear-facing. Just because something is slightly statistically safer doesn't mean it's the best thing to do, for a variety of reasons. This rationale applies to every area of life, not just car seats. I appreciate the guidelines but the statistical increase in safety would not have been great enough to persuade me to keep my children rear-facing for a variety of important reasons.
As for the booster rules, I think the height/weight limits are much more important than age limits, although the incremental amount of safety gained through booster seat usage is pretty slim after a certain point as well. Anecdotally, my 7 year old has to scrunch into her highly ranked Graco high-back booster because she's too tall to sit up straight in it. I'm not sure what the actual value of the belt-positioning booster is if you've physically outgrown it, but she's staying in til age 8 because that's what the law requires.
Posted by: MLB | March 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM
I also believe they should have done the rear-facing recommendation by height. I have very tall skinny kids, including one 15 month old who is 35.5 inches tall already snd was a screamer while rear-facing. We have flipped him forward already and as far as I am concerned he will be staying that way.
I went looking for the seat height recommendations for rear-facing for his older Britax Boulevard and all they have published is a general height restriction of 49 inches which can't possibly be right to rear-face. I am not against safety and have my similarly >99% 4 year old in a 5 point harnessed booster with a high height limit but the rear-facing recommendation doesn't work for us as a family.
I also really wonder about the theory that kids should stay in the backseat until 13. I know that I learned a lot about driving even as a younger kid just by watching. What is it going to be like for kids to come out of the back and get their learner's permits 2 years later?
Posted by: Carrie in VA | March 22, 2011 at 12:29 PM
I have lots and lots of opinions on this topic, but I won't bother you all with them. However, I do want to say, that the reason they based the new guidelines by age is because of the way our bodies and bones develop and fuse together, not because it is a mythical milestone. Prior to the age of two, a baby/toddler's head is grossly out of proportion to the rest of their body. So in the event of an accident, spinal and neck injuries are much more likely if facing forward. When you are rear facing, the seat absorbs the impact instead of the body.
I had very large babies like Moxie (son 1 was 23" at birth and 10 lbs.) and son 2 was almost as large. I was able to keep both rear facing for two years with a Britax Marathon. Yes, the legs are scrunched, but a broken leg is fixable, and truthfully, my boys didn't love the car, but it didn't change just because I turned them around.
My point is, that the age guideline actually does matter when you think about the physiologally of a child's developing body, and not just with convertible car seats. If your child outgrows the height/weight restrictions of a car seat (infant, convertible, or booster) before they reach these limits, there are plenty of seat available that have higher limits. Of course they cost a small fortune....
Posted by: heather | March 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM
I guess that is score one for my laziness. I had intended to switch my almost 2 year old's seat at age one but the hassle of it made me wait. He is quite fine rear facing and loves to make funny faces at his brothers who sit in the back. We do have a car seat that can stay rear facing up to 35 pounds but I don't think I will wait that long to change him, he would probably be 4 by then and his knees would be hitting his ears. I don't think it is bad to wait if you can. If he was a screamer I would have quickly change his seat to forward facing.
Posted by: Awesome Mom | March 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM
If I remember correctly from a conversation here, the rules in Europe are far stricter. 5-point harnesses until age 8, I think it was.
We kept our son in a booster until last Summer (8.5 years old, but then he rebelled, because NONE of his friends are in boosters. I asked around and this is one time that he was right. Not one had been in a booster since age 6.
Posted by: liz | March 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM
I'm a CPST (child passenger safety technician, aka 'carseat tech') and honestly, I'm surprised the AskMoxie crowd didn't already know this. It's been a big push for a couple years now, and this group is one of the most educated and 'into' research into parenting that I know of.
There are a lot of great newer convertibles on the market that accomodate larger kids (both height and weight-wise). And rear-facing convertibles don't have to be as reclined for a older baby/toddler as they do for a newborn, so they take up less space front-to-back.
Legs don't matter in rear-facing. Kids fold them up, toss them over the sides, sit criss-cross, whatever. It's not a comfort issue. And it's definitely NOT a safety issue. Legs fly *UP* in a frontal accident (the most serious). Broken legs are a relatively common injury for forward facing kids, and virtually unheard of in rear-facing kiddos.
Posted by: Amanda | March 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM
I agree with Heather, and just a quick note for parents with very young children still...both my kids (with very different temperaments) happily rode rear facing until they were 3.25 years old, and we did short and long car trips frequently. It means a bit more patience getting them in and out, but they just fold their legs when they are in the seat.
Posted by: Erika | March 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM
We're keeping my 14 month rearfacing for now, since we hadn't bothered to switch him yet, and I'd like to make it to 2 years. I know that we won't, however, because #2 is due when this one turns 21 months and neither my husband or I can drive our cars if there are 2 rear-facing car seats installed in the back. (And I'm 5'2" and drive a normal sized sedan.) The car seats may be nice and big to accommodate the kids, but the cars aren't big enough for the seats.
Posted by: Theresa | March 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM
For those of you who were rankled by the "milestone" remark, I can see why. However, I personally know people who have viewed it as a milestone, or who switched their kids well before one year (one person at 6 months) because it was more convenient, so the remark isn't totally unfounded (for SOME people).
We kept our tall firstborn rear facing until just shy of his third birthday, when our third baby was born. Our car couldn't accommodate three rear facing carseats, otherwise I would have kept him RF longer--he was completely content, and just sat cross-legged very comfortably. He also liked looking out the back windshield. Our tall 26 month old is RF in a Britax Boulevard, and we have no plans to turn her unless we have another baby and need to turn her or she outgrows the seat RF. For the small car people, I was shocked at how a convertible seat can fit RF in a small car. It can go at a more upright angle than an infant seat, so it actually gives you a little more room once you move to the convertible seat.
For those who have cranky car riders, I'd encourage you to wait it out for a few months. I found that once my kids got a little over a year, they were much more content in the car when they were able to look at books or play with a small stuffed animal. They now entertain themselves by singing, talking to each other, and counting things outside, all of which couldn't be done at 12 months to keep themselves happy.
The carseat forum on www.diaperswappers.com is a good place to go for information and help finding a seat that will fit your car and your kid rear facing.
Posted by: JCF | March 22, 2011 at 01:06 PM
The Britax car seats are convertible, with some of them going up from 5 to 35 pounds rear-facing and then turning around and going up to 65 pounds. They seem expensive until you realize that you will only have to buy one from the infant stage until the older age. I bought one and my son got used to being rear-facing. He did his share of screaming in the car, but I had read the stats and was willing to deal with it for safety reasons. I turned him around at 2 years old.
Posted by: Anne | March 22, 2011 at 01:13 PM
Amen, @Erin: "I wonder what the danger level is of listening to your child scream bloody murder as a distractor. (I mean, how safe can it be to listen to a child scream? I cannot think when he's screaming.)
Amen, @ Lisa "Whether individual states change their laws to be in accordance with these guidelines remains to be seen, but until they do, I don't believe this is required." CORRECT! For Americans, our STATE LAW governs the rules of our roads including rules about carseat and booster usage. Last I checked, the AAP is not a lawmaking body. ;)
If you bought an Alpha Omega carseat (including ones sold at Costco in '08 or '09), you've probably already heard about this recall:
http://www.djgusa.com/usa/eng/Safety-Notices/Detail/506-Cosco,-Maxi-Cosi,-and-Safety-1st-Child-Restraint-System-Center-Front-Adjuster-Recall
Which reminds me of that chapter in "Superfreakonomics" wondering about the vaunted "good" that the carseats we pay so much for (and that seem to get recalled often/need replacing every few years as the kid grows) actually do? :
http://freakonomicsbook.com/superfreakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-4/
Interesting reading - but obviously I'm not foolish enough to eschew carseats altogether (and anyway that's NOT what the book chapter recommends). I mean, what parent these days could ever withstand the harsh public judgments that would ensue if their kid were just sitting in the backseat of a car in a plain old seatbelt!! Gasp!! So yes, my kids are still going to be in carseats until like forever, and I'm already saving up to buy replacements, and am mentally-preparing to have to follow up on future recall messages...
Posted by: hush | March 22, 2011 at 01:18 PM
I'm with you, Theresa. My third child was born 12 days after my twin daughters turned two, and my girls (being twins and small) were still well below the weight limits for rear-facing. My vehicle does not accommodate three properly-installed rear-facing infant seats -- and I drive a Lincoln Navigator, which is a three-row SUV.
I don't feel especially unsafe with forward-facing seats, because the absolute danger is so very tiny. The rear-facing advocates suggest that rear-facing would prevent about 66 injuries a year, which is a ridiculously small number when we're talking about a cohort of roughly 4 million children. I'm comfortable accepting that level of risk; in fact, I accept a higher one every time I put them in the car, regardless of seating direction.
Posted by: Emma B | March 22, 2011 at 01:22 PM
YES @ Mo. I know there is something about age having to do with body elasticity/floppiness/etc. but I am with you--throw out the age thing entirely.
And YES at Anne. We bought the Britaxes because our first child was 32 lbs on his first birthday but was still clearly too floppy to turn around until past his first birthday. (Well, I thought he was too floppy, anyway. Feeling vindicated.) My younger son is 5.5years and just moved in to a booster seat from his Britax 5-point because rather unlike his brother, he just crossed the 40-lb. limit on the seat.
As to the grannies who need boosters...so do I, and I use one. Alas, my hips that birthed those big boys don't fit in to theirs, but I have a grownup one of my own. I am a stickler about proper-fitting seat belts and that includes for me.
Posted by: MemeGRL | March 22, 2011 at 01:23 PM
Aack, got distracted. Main point was:
For long babies sitting backwards: criss-cross-applesauce works. And is so much safer.
Posted by: MemeGRL | March 22, 2011 at 01:24 PM
My kid was turned at 1 and is now nearly 7. My favorite way to keep her safe is not to drive (we're lucky to live in a city with great transit) but the couple times a week she rides in a car she's in a basic booster. She's over 50 inches, so I suppose another couple years will do it.
I think what rankles parents is when something new comes out that does have a real safety impact, but any objections about the also real hassles are dismissed because it's about Safety and that should Always be your First Concern As A Parent. Instead of addressing concerns (like, for people who drive a lot, puking kids, etc.), the officials just capitalize it a little further - no, this is about SAFETY - and tell the parents they're whiners or irresponsible. As someone said on another board I'm on yesterday, our children would be a hell of a lot safer if we had a speed limit of 25, but we don't do that. So there actually are tradeoffs that are made between convenience and safety and it should be fair to talk about them. Moxie, thanks for your assumption in the original post and for making this a safe space.
Posted by: Charisse | March 22, 2011 at 01:24 PM
You know, my mom has been eager to turn my 21 month old forward facing ever since he turned one, and in looking for info for her to read a few months ago, everyone recommended rear facing until two, so I don't think this is anything new or crazy.
That said, we did just have to flip him forward facing because I'm expecting a baby any day, and we can't fit two rear facing seats in our small car (well, not if we want to fit the driver, anyway). He's very tall for his age, and he was scrunched up when he was rear facing, but eh, whatever ... I will say that he seems much happier facing forward, though.
Posted by: Robin | March 22, 2011 at 01:28 PM
The AAP also recommends breastfeeding to age six months (and WHO says until age two), right? But basically no feels pressured to follow that guideline. I guess I'm just not a rule follower. I turned by baby at one, even though I knew that two was the new recommendation. Oh...and I breastfed my first for over four years...
http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/feb05breastfeeding.htm
http://www.who.int/child_adolescent_health/topics/prevention_care/child/nutrition/breastfeeding/en/index.html
Posted by: juliag | March 22, 2011 at 01:30 PM
The Dr. quoted in the article seems like real peach, huh? I'm pretty sure parents aren't turning their kids around at age one because they think they are brilliant but because that is what the AAP recommended up until two days ago.
While the data are very clear that rear-facing is the safest a lot people need to make compromises on what is best if that doesn't work out for them. If you have two kids in a small car it is almost impossible to have a convertible seat rear-facing. Not everyone has the means to buy a bigger car just to keep their kids rear-facing. We'll be keeping our 16 month old rear-facing as long as possible I can certainly imagine that we might turn it around before he reaches the weight limit of the seat.
Parents are trying to the best they can. We live in Minnesota and don't have an attached garage and there is no way in hell I am taking off the coats of a one and three year old in the middle of winter each time we get in and out of the car. I know that is what is safest, it's a compromise I take full responsibility for.
The data from the report are very interesting. First of all, 21% of kids were not restrained at all and were therefore eliminated from the study! I think a more effective public health message would be to keep your kids rear-facing as long as possible up to the weight limit of the seat but also, more importantly, all small children need to be in a car seat.
Posted by: scantee | March 22, 2011 at 01:38 PM
We used Graco marathon and kept our son rear-facing until he was too big for the weight requirements, which was two and a bit. I was expecting a whole screaming fuss, but he was always perfectly happy to face backwards.
Posted by: Alanna | March 22, 2011 at 01:41 PM
My turned my daughter to forward facing when she outgrew the weight limit on her rear facing seat. She was 17 months and the limit on the seat was 30 lbs. So according to the guidelines my daughter should be forward facing, so it is about size somewhat, not just development. Also, the injury study is from 2007? I'd like to see the actual study, and see if there isn't anything more recent. Seems like car seats have become even safer from 4 years ago.
Posted by: Gillian | March 22, 2011 at 01:45 PM
My daughter just turned 2 and is a little over 30 lbs and is still rear-facing. I bought a seat that can be rear-facing up to 45 lbs. She's also tall, and yes, her feet hit the seat, but that's OK.
Personally, I don't attribute her dislike of the car seat to it being rear-facing, I attribute it to her dislike of being strapped in to anything. She also doesn't like getting in the stroller much anymore and that faces forward.
I'm also glad they made this announcement because now I feel justified. It was annoying that people were asking me when my DD would "get" to be forward facing. In my mind it is a question of when she'll "have to" be forward facing.
Posted by: Jessica | March 22, 2011 at 01:49 PM
I don't think it's just a matter of height and weight.
Structurally, they are still so top heavy at 1 that a sudden stop is far more of a strain on the neck and body than it would be for a 2 year old.
My first was off the charts (still is) for height, weight, and head circumference. She was, thankfully, quite happy to stay rear-facing until age two (when she was 38 inches and 36 pounds). She sat kind of cross-legged in her Marathon and didn't seem to care that she *looked* rather scrunched!
Posted by: laura | March 22, 2011 at 01:49 PM
My daughter turns 7 months old this week. She's seemed OK rear-facing to this point, but knowing her mother's history of violent car sickness (one of my earliest memories is of making my parents pull over so I could lose my lunch on the side of the road), I'm wondering whether she'll develop that as well. And how well rear-facing will go over if that happens.
Also, we have a full-sized four-door sedan, and her Graco Snugride just barrrrrely fits when my 6'2" husband is driving. This is not a small car -- it's a station-wagon-type vehicle. We may need to upgrade when she hits 20 lbs and moves up to a larger seat. I wonder how many other people that might affect.
Also -- a booster seat until 85 lbs?? I'm embarrassed to admit that that would have been 10th grade for me.
Posted by: PiquantMolly | March 22, 2011 at 01:51 PM
I kept my daughter rear facing until about 20 months. I would have kept her rear facing longer, and she did not mind facing to the rear, but it just was not physically possible. She is off the chart for height and 50% for weight, so she is long string bean! Her legs are very long. Cross legged did not work and she got a tummy ache from being scrunched up.
Posted by: Chrissy | March 22, 2011 at 01:54 PM
@Charisse: AMEN. Not only on the subject of Safety but all things to related to parenting, I wish people would stop using "convenience" as a dirty word.
And you know unfortunately all that talk about The Children! And Their Safety! can get hysterical, and it can have the effect of making me tune out. If I can't differentiate between the things that are really critical and the things that aren't so much, I just end up doing what maybe we should all do anyway, which is use our Best Judgment. (Oh, and stop judging others.)
Posted by: Erin | March 22, 2011 at 02:12 PM
My daughter has been off the charts for height since she was 6 months, and in between the 10th and 20th percentiles for weight since birth. (she's 2.5 now) Our pediatrician told us that we should keep her rear-facing as long as we could, but not to force the issue; if she was really uncomfortable and therefore screaming her head off every time we were in the car (which she was at age 1, due to her legs being forced to be bent the entire ride,) that the distraction of her screaming was more of a risk than having her forward-facing. The day we flipped the carseat around was a milestone in our lives only because it was the first time we could drive anywhere in MONTHS without her screaming the whole time. I think that you have to balance the guidelines with what works for your family. Setting specific age or height or weight limits individually is ridiculous; you could have a 2 year old who is 37 inches tall and 20 lbs or a 2 year old who is 32 inches tall and 30 lbs. The height and weight, together, should be taken into consideration IMO.
Posted by: Erica | March 22, 2011 at 02:17 PM
We were in Europe when our oldest (now 9 yrs) was a toddler and realized that they keep kids rear-facing much longer than was advised in the US at the time. I read up on the rationale and we decided to keep our younger kids rear-facing until they reached the max rear-facing weight/height for the seat (Britax Marathon). My kids actually preferred sitting cross-legged to having dangling legs with no foot rest (as happens when they face forward).
So, it can be done, as others have mentioned, but I also agree that it needs to be a judgment call by the parents. I know it would be safest for my kids to stay in a 5-pt harness as long as possible, and you can buy huge seats that will accommodate them well into grade school. But, we carpool a ton and booster seats are just way easier for that. And my 4th grader would die of embarrassment if he had to ride in a 5-pt harness. He's annoyed as it is that I still make him use a booster seat.
Also, YES to those who have pointed out that ideally, even adults should be in a 5-pt. harness. Heck, the safest thing is to not get in the car at all! We all make safety trade-offs somewhere, and I think parents have a right to decide where that line is for their kids. Take the recommendations into account, of course, but make the call that works for your family.
Posted by: Laura | March 22, 2011 at 02:18 PM
Its not a big deal for us. Our oldest is almost 4, and stayed rear facing until she was too tall, which was at about 18months, if I remember right. (For anyone not sure on this point- it is based on head position relative to the top of the carseat, not legs- frog legs or cross-legged is OK.) My youngest is almost 18 months, and still rides rear facing and will do so until she is too tall or too heavy for that.
We've had no problems with this arrangement- which is of course not to judge anyone who has. Just to say to people with little babies who are thinking "oh great, another big issue to figure out my opinion on" that this may turn out to be a non-issue in your life.
FWIW, we have Britax roundabouts in a Prius and a Mazda 5, and have had no space issues with space while rear facing, except for when my husband messes with the seats in the Mazda 5 to get his bike in the back. But that issue is really a marital "why can't he put them back the way they were?" issue and not anything fundamental with the car seat.
Amazingly, despite having a mother who gets so car sick that she sometimes has to drink a fizzy drink even if she is the driver on a windy road, neither kid has ever shown any signs of carsickness. So we're lucky there. Don't be jealous, though. We lost the genetic lottery on sleep and eating, so I guess the universe threw us a bone on travel ease.
Posted by: Cloud | March 22, 2011 at 02:25 PM
Those of you who think you have too little room to continue rearfacing -- you can install your car seat more upright. Convertibles in particular take up less room than infant seats. Try to find a CPST (currently certified, not just the local PD) to help you install your seat more upright. Check here for a CPST in your area: https://ssl13.cyzap.net/dzapps/dbzap.bin/apps/assess/webmembers/tool?pToolCode=TAB9&pCategory1=TAB9_CERTSEARCH&Webid=SAFEKIDSCERTSQL
Also check out the forums at http://www.car-seat.org for installation help.
I also had two chunky monkeys. I FF my oldest when he outgrew the weight limit at 28 months, then re-RF him again a few months later when I bought a seat with a higher limit (had bought it for FF, but was a bonus that it RF longer). He LOVED rear-facing, and still wishes he could at 4.5 years old, to match his little brother.
Little brother HATED his infant seat, so I switched him to a convertible at 4 months, but he still went through a screaming phase later on. It's normal. We made it through, and now at 18 months he rarely complains about the car seat.
I can't think of a time when my youngest sits to play withOUT his legs bent. Really -- toddlers bend their legs ALL THE TIME. What's different about doing it in the car? My older son complains that he can't bend his legs; they just dangle now that he's FF. His little brother is much more comfy!
Posted by: Cristina P. | March 22, 2011 at 02:28 PM
For booster readiness, there are tests you can do to assess whether they fit the seatbelts of the car properly (in addition to just height and weight).
I will admit to (silently) judging the parent of a child we had a play-date with last weekend when she asked if I had moved my 3yr old into a booster yet. Um, no. Our state law says car seat until 4.
Posted by: Erin | March 22, 2011 at 02:28 PM
My 2.5 year old is off the charts tall (97% - wears 4T clothes) and above average weight. He is perfectly content rf'ing. When it became obvious that he was taking after my 6'3" husband (and number 2 was on the way so I needed another seat anyway) I bought him a sunshine kids radian to keep him rf'ing until at least 3 (and as long as he tolerates afterwards, I would love to make it to 4). He has plenty of room for his legs - he crosses them, puts them on the seat back, or hangs them over the edge, is happy to look out the window, the back windshield or read his books.
I think there are kids who inherently hate riding backwards but I think more hate it because their particular seat is uncomfortable or because they happen to be going through a car hating phase. Also, many people don't know that older kids can sit up straighter than newborns - it's actually safer, toddlers like it better because they can see more and of course, it saves lots of room for the front passengers.
I live in the DC area which has horrible traffic and insane drivers. My car is new and pretty safe but I'd rather not take the chance that some texting teenage driver is on the road with me.
Hopefully these new recommendations will accelerate development of new convertible seats that are safer, easier to install, and more comfortable for kids and parents.
Re: 12 & under in the back seat - this is not a new warning - my 11 year old car had this on the passenger visor. Airbags save lives but they can also seriously damage immature skeletons. Everyone is safer in the back because you're farther from the point of impact (very few deadly crashes are rearenders), why not keep your preteen in the back when it's free to do so.
Posted by: Sarah | March 22, 2011 at 02:29 PM
"[T]he AAP advises parents to keep their toddlers in rear-facing car seats until age 2, or until they reach the maximum height and weight for their seat." If I had literally followed this, I would have turned my son around at 4 months, as that is when he grew too tall for the baby bucket.
He rode in a convertible seat until he got too tall for the rear facing configuration for that at 14 months or so.
Posted by: Elizabeth | March 22, 2011 at 02:29 PM
Oh, and he's 5 & a bit now and in the only five-point car seat we could find for a kid his size: the britax 85 something. (also, just realized I said Graco when I meant Britax in my last post.) All his friends are in boosters but he loves his "big seat" - I guess I just wanted to say that sometimes you get lucky and it's easy.
Posted by: Alanna | March 22, 2011 at 02:29 PM
As a city-dweller, my child rarely rides in a car, but when she does, oh how she screams.
But whatever, enough about me. Moxie, you asked about how things are done in other countries; I live in Japan where the enforcement of car seat rules is unbelievably lax. Most parents have car seats installed in their cars, but I rarely ever see children actually sitting in the seats. They're bounding all over the car, jumping into parents' laps, standing up, leaning out windows, etc. Not ideal from a vehicle safety point of view.
Though this does speak to one of my pet thought-obsessions: North Americans (and I count myself amongst this group) are unhealthily hung-up on safety and are incredibly risk-adverse. And we are driving ourself nuts with avoiding danger at all costs. When my daughter was brand new, I was convinced that if I didn't follow North American safety recommendations to the letter, some terrible fate would befall my child. This lead to me importing a crib from Canada at GREAT (and totally unnecessary) expense and trouble, because I could not stand the thought of my baby in a Japanese drop-sided crib. Horror of horrors. You have no idea how many hours (and dollars) I wasted fretting over this. But the safety guidelines told me...
What I'm saying is its good to follow the guidelines. But its not good to give yourself a brain aneurysm over them. So, if your kid is one, and meets hight / wight requirements and screams bloody murder if she is turned backwards, I think the benefits of riding forward vastly outweigh the risks.
Posted by: expatriababy | March 22, 2011 at 02:32 PM