Forward facing in car seats

JonnyM

When is the correct time to put your child in the forward facing position in their car seat??

We were told in Mothercare around 9months old and on the car seat it says 9kgs upwards my two are 35 weeks old and about 7kgs.

Probably leave it for another few weeks yet but what are your thoughts and what did you do?

cheers

Ayla

My understanding on it was that babes are safest facing backwards for as long as possible. We kept ours facing backwards until their legs got squashed against the seat, so they were backwards facing until at least 12 months.

crazy cat lady

We kept Megan in hers til she was about 11 months. We went to mothercare to buy a forward facing car seat, and we had her in her Maxi-Cosi on her pram and they told us that she should stay in the rear facing while her head was still within the car seat. When it got close to the top we changed her over to the forward facing. Her legs wound be bent up but she always seemed to be comfortable. It's the safest way to travel with babies in a car so keep them rearward facing as long as possible!

How Strange

We were told 9 months, 9kgs or when they're head comes over the top of the seat. My son is almost 9 months so we'll have to change ours in the near future too. From what I've read on the interweb the 'new' advice is to keep them rearfacing until 4 years. This is standard now in Sweden.

We have an old focus do we're limited in our choice but if our car is compatible with a rear facing seat we're going to get one.

Moonbeam

It depends where in the world you are.
3 years:)

http://www.rearfacing.co.uk/

The site is slightly biased but worth reading.

soc

I was told age doesn't matter... it's the weight of your little one that is the deciding factor.

So, if your baby is under 9kg, then they should remain in the rear facing baby seat until they are over the 9kg mark. Our little one didn't hit the 9kg mark until he was 13 months old.

sillysocks

We were told to leave the baby in the rearward seat until their head reaches the top (doesn't matter if their legs poke out a bit at the bottom), and that the minimum for moving them is 9kg, but the max the stage one seats hold is something like 14kg so they don't have to be moved as soon as they hit 9 if they're still fitting the seat.

For anyone looking for next stage car seat Halfords seem to be having a sale, we got one seat with 105 eur off and one with 50 eur off.

Dades

We changed our fella at 10 months for a couple of reasons.

1. He's a lanky baba, and was starting to have to scrunch.
2. He always (vocally) hated the rearfacing seat but grinned like a cheshire cat from the moment we switched him around.

xzanti

9 months, as recommended by staff in Smyths..

I couldn't wait to get him into a forward facing seat for same 2 reasons as Dades..

He used to cry himself to (if we were lucky) sleep on long journeys from around 7 months onwards, just wasn't comfortable in it any more..

Now he loves travelling in the car has a great oul nosey out the window..

andrea

Our eldest is 2 yrs 9 mths and is still rear facing, she will be as long as she is under the weight limit for her current seat (18kg is the limit for the harnesses). She doesn't pass any remarks, in fact I think she can see more than she can in the forward facing seat we got her for granny's car! I really believe she's safer rear facing as she is still so tiny. Her little sister will use the same seat when she is old enough.

cynder

My eldest was 6 months when she went into front facing (she is 12 now) my boys were around 7 months, they were all big babies at 9 months they all were the weight of a 18month old. (infact bigger i just checked their record books)... Thankfully they didnt hold onto the puppy fat and it left them all by the age of 4-5.

At 20 weeks my daughter was 9kgs. A 44 week old baby girl is an average of 9kg. At 42 weeks she was 12 kgs the weight of an average 2 year old.... She was breast fed until she was 2 and a half.......

I know a few that had very light babies and even at 9 months they were only the weight of a 6 month old.....

Moonbeam

andrea wrote: »

Our eldest is 2 yrs 9 mths and is still rear facing, she will be as long as she is under the weight limit for her current seat (18kg is the limit for the harnesses). She doesn't pass any remarks, in fact I think she can see more than she can in the forward facing seat we got her for granny's car! I really believe she's safer rear facing as she is still so tiny. Her little sister will use the same seat when she is old enough.

Exact same as mine:)
I will move her on to a forward facing one when it is time for baby sister to move out of the baby seat.

CashMoney

I can't understand why people are so quick to turn their kids around front facing. If you have done any research into the safety advantages of rear facing over front facing, I doubt you would be so quick to change.

I don't mean to scare the shit out of people but turning a child around at 6-9 months is completely insane if you ask me. Any kind of serious frontal impact will most likely mean serious neck injury for your child.

There are carseats available that are designed to stay rear facing up until about 5 years old or more (55lbs). The sales people in Smyths and Mothercare etc give bad advice because they don't sell these seats and basically haven't a clue about child safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DVfqFhseo

This one is difficult to watch....very sad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8gU9zzCGA8

carfiosaoorl

You should keep your child rearfacing until at least 12mths. A babies spinal vertibrae dont fuse until that time so a frontal collision could cause internal decapitation. I dont know why we are advised that 9mths is ok over here. In scandinavian countries the law is 5 years. I would keep your lo rearfacing for as long as possible, it is the safest way by far.

-Corkie-

I cannot wait to get the proper isofix forward facing seat for Saoirse. We have a baby elegance travel system atm and the car seat is horrible and arkward.

wmpdd3

I agree, the car seat that came with my travel system was very cramped from 9 months on, but we had a loan of a Graco carry tot too and she was fine in that until she was 13 months old. The only reason we stopped using it is the straps wouldn't tie on her anymore but, she is quite petite.

In her Britax first class she was fine rear facing until a few weeks ago, she had marks on her thighs from trying to put her legs somewhere in the small space allowed.

CashMoney

-Corkie- wrote: »

I cannot wait to get the proper isofix forward facing seat for Saoirse. We have a baby elegance travel system atm and the car seat is horrible and arkward.

How old is Saoirse? Surely safety should be your primary concern rather than horribleness and awkwardness, no?

CashMoney

wmpdd3 wrote: »

In her Britax first class she was fine rear facing until a few weeks ago, she had marks on her thighs from trying to put her legs somewhere in the small space allowed.

Isn't the Britax First Class is only designed to be rear facing up to 13kgs.

gems1183

hi all,like corkie I have a baby elegance seat for my 9 month old and I have to leave it in the car fixed in its base all the time as it is very awkward to get in and out the way the seatbelt loops through it.It was fine when babs was quite small and light but now he's heavier and wrigglier tipping him back at an angle doesnt work anymore!even the way it fixes on to the pushchair is only really suitable for a newish baby as you have to pull two clips up at the same time as lifting the seat clear of the frame! babs hasnt grown out of the seat yet so he'll stay in it for as long as possible.

-Corkie-

CashMoney wrote: »

How old is Saoirse? Surely safety should be your primary concern rather than horribleness and awkwardness, no?

She is 4 months. Safety is my concern as the baby elegance is very hard to secure properly on to the base also the base can move from side to side even though its secured properly.

Her granny got a seat in Lidl and its a way more superior and a lot more comfy for her too.

January

-Corkie- wrote: »

She is 4 months. Safety is my concern as the baby elegance is very hard to secure properly on to the base also the base can move from side to side even though its secured properly.

Her granny got a seat in Lidl and its a way more superior and a lot more comfy for her too.

Those Lidl rock-a-tots are made by the same people who make Quinny/Maxi Cosi products.

-Corkie-

January wrote: »

Those Lidl rock-a-tots are made by the same people who make Quinny/Maxi Cosi products.

Yes Hauch is the name of it. I certainly would not recomend the baby elegance system to anyone..

wmpdd3

CashMoney wrote: »

Isn't the Britax First Class is only designed to be rear facing up to 13kgs.

Yes, but she's still quite small, She's probably still not 13k. You can use it forward facing form 9k to 18k.

CashMoney

wmpdd3 wrote: »

Yes, but she's still quite small, She's probably still not 13k. You can use it forward facing form 9k to 18k.

You can but I would not recommend it at all.

Tayla

JonnyM wrote: »

what are your thoughts and what did you do?

Leave them in the rear facing seat for as long as possible, you should only move them when they reach the maximum weight for the car seat or if their head has reached the top of the seat.

When my first son was just a year old, I still had him in the Maxi Cosi, we had quite a bad crash which resulted in my seat breaking and pushing backwards causing his baby seat to turn upwards, he was perfectly fine after it and maybe the forward facing seat would be just as safe for him on the day but who knows, he might have damaged his neck had he been forward facing. I definitely would never consider taking a baby out of the seat until it's absolutely necessary.

CashMoney wrote: »

I can't understand why people are so quick to turn their kids around front facing. If you have done any research into the safety advantages of rear facing over front facing, I doubt you would be so quick to change.

I don't get that either, it's proven to be safer, parents shouldn't take any chances.

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

I can't understand why people are so quick to turn their kids around front facing. If you have done any research into the safety advantages of rear facing over front facing, I doubt you would be so quick to change.

It's because it's very hard to find rear facing child seats for older toddlers in this country. People are guided very much by what is available.


That and like Dades, I've seen both kids go from grumpy to happy once they went forward facing.

aniascor

nesf wrote: »

It's because it's very hard to find rear facing child seats for older toddlers in this country. People are guided very much by what is available.


That and like Dades, I've seen both kids go from grumpy to happy once they went forward facing.

+1 I had read about the benefits of staying rearward facing for as long as possible, but when it came to it, there were only forward facing seats available when we went shopping.

In the end we went for the Britax first class, because it could stay rearward facing for longer, and I regretted the purchase. We had to turn it around far sooner than I had planned, because I never felt it was fully secured when it was rearward facing. If I had my time over, we would never have bought that model. I'd have paid the extra money for one that could be secured with an iso-fix base.

Moonbeam

http://www.securatot.co.uk/besafe-izi-combi-isofix?category_id=61 is what we have bought from kiddicare.

nesf

Moonbeam wrote: »

http://www.securatot.co.uk/besafe-izi-combi-isofix?category_id=61 is what we have bought from kiddicare.

The price! :eek:

Moonbeam

I did pay less then that:)

CashMoney

nesf wrote: »

It's because it's very hard to find rear facing child seats for older toddlers in this country. People are guided very much by what is available.


That and like Dades, I've seen both kids go from grumpy to happy once they went forward facing.

They're not that hard to find. Tony Kealys do a couple and there's a good few places on line.

As has been said, I'd rather have a grumpy kid with their neck in one piece. It's OK for front seat adults, as they will most likely have airbags to stop their head disconnecting from their spine in a crash but back seat kids don't have that luxury.

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

They're not that hard to find. Tony Kealys do a couple and there's a good few places on line.

As has been said, I'd rather have a grumpy kid with their neck in one piece. It's OK for front seat adults, as they will most likely have airbags to stop their head disconnecting from their spine in a crash but back seat kids don't have that luxury.

I've never heard of Tony Kealys.

I agree that they're safer, no argument there. Though personally I think limiting time in the car is better than any car seat etc.

pwurple

Just out of interest, the video shows a front impact. I assume if you are rear ended in the car, with a rear facing seat the damage to a spine is the same as a front impact with a front facing seat?

Is it just that more accidents are front on than rear that the risk is reduced?

Moonbeam

I looked in to this and only 4-5% of crashes are from the rear.
I am pretty sure crashtest.com have more up to date info.
I don't have a link to the stats for Ireland.

CashMoney

pwurple wrote: »

Just out of interest, the video shows a front impact. I assume if you are rear ended in the car, with a rear facing seat the damage to a spine is the same as a front impact with a front facing seat?

Is it just that more accidents are front on than rear that the risk is reduced?

The most serious crashes are head on collisions where two cars driving at a relatively slow 30mph crashing into eachother head on is effectively the same as crashing into a parked car at 60mph.

The second most serious crash is crashing into solid object (wall, tree, etc) which will obviously be a frontal impact unless you're in the habit of reversing places at speed.

In both of these most serious of circumstances, you would want to be rearfacing.

There is still a risk that you might get rear ended at speed but every crash that involves getting rear ended at speed also involves a frontal impact too i.e you could be the one doing the rear ending. So even in rear ending situation there is a 50/50 chance that you would be better off rear facing too depending on which car you're in. But as said above, getting rear ended at speed accounts for a relatively small number of serious crashes.

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

The most serious crashes are head on collisions where two cars driving at a relatively slow 30mph crashing into eachother head on is effectively the same as crashing into a parked car at 60mph.

The second most serious crash is crashing into solid object (wall, tree, etc) which will obviously be a frontal impact unless you're in the habit of reversing places at speed.

In both of these most serious of circumstances, you would want to be rearfacing.

There is still a risk that you might get rear ended at speed but every crash that involves getting rear ended at speed also involves a frontal impact too i.e you could be the one doing the rear ending. So even in rear ending situation there is a 50/50 chance that you would be better off rear facing too depending on which car you're in. But as said above, getting rear ended at speed accounts for a relatively small number of serious crashes.

I thought the most serious and dangerous crash is when you're hit by another car into the side of your vehicle?

Moonbeam

which accounts for about 24-25% of crashes according to the stats I was reading.

CashMoney

nesf wrote: »

I thought the most serious and dangerous crash is when you're hit by another car into the side of your vehicle?

I think the relative speeds involved in a head on collision are widely under estimated.

Again though it's the same thing with a side impact - this also involves a frontal impact of the car coming from the side. Almost all serious crashes involve a frontal impact.

Also some interesting reading from carseat.se regarding side impact collisions:

"Things are unfortunately very different in real life due to "pre-impact breaking".

Pre-impact braking occur in a high percentage of accidents from the side and basically means that a driver hits the brakes just before impact. This makes a big difference in how our children's vulnerable head and neck area is protected.

In a typical side collision, head of a forward facing child will be thrown forward just before collision due to pre-impact breaking. This leads to poor protection despite deep "side wings" regardless if it's a harnessed or a high back booster seat. A rear facing child is far more fortunate. In an accident a rear facing child will be pushed further into the car seat just before collision, due to pre-impact breaking, leading to excellent protection for the weak neck and head area. As any doctor will say: "We can fix arms, legs and many other things. We can't fix head and neck".

nesf

CashMoney wrote: »

I think the relative speeds involved in a head on collision are widely under estimated.

Again though it's the same thing with a side impact - this also involves a frontal impact of the car coming from the side. Almost all serious crashes involve a frontal impact.

Also some interesting reading from carseat.se regarding side impact collisions:

"Things are unfortunately very different in real life due to "pre-impact breaking".

Pre-impact braking occur in a high percentage of accidents from the side and basically means that a driver hits the brakes just before impact. This makes a big difference in how our children's vulnerable head and neck area is protected.

In a typical side collision, head of a forward facing child will be thrown forward just before collision due to pre-impact breaking. This leads to poor protection despite deep "side wings" regardless if it's a harnessed or a high back booster seat. A rear facing child is far more fortunate. In an accident a rear facing child will be pushed further into the car seat just before collision, due to pre-impact breaking, leading to excellent protection for the weak neck and head area. As any doctor will say: "We can fix arms, legs and many other things. We can't fix head and neck".

Sure, but you've substantially more protection on the crash side of the vehicle on a front on front collision. I agree the "crash speed" will be far higher, probably double and very dangerous, but a side crash is lethally dangerous even at relative low speeds.

CashMoney

nesf wrote: »

a side crash is lethally dangerous even at relative low speeds.

Very true and the evidence seems to suggest that even for side impacts, rear facing is best too.