What should be the legal ff minimum?

pepsicola

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #1

As you know, the law regarding how long babies have to be rear facing vary by state. Let's suppose the federal government passes a law mandating that children in all 50 states must meet a certain minimum before they can be turned forward facing.

What would you like it to be? (Poll above!)

 

MomToEliEm

Moderator

• Dec 10, 2010

• #2

2 years old OR 30 pounds would be okay with me.

 

nevaehsmommy

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #3

I put 2 years, no weight minimum. But really if they want ALL kids to be able to RF to they are two they are going to have to come out with some higher weight RFing seats. We have two very big kiddos at church right now. They are not fat at all. They have nearly the same stats as my four year old. They are just REALLY talk and stocky.

So I guess what I am saying is if we make a law mandating ALL children two and under must be rear facing we need to be able to accommodate even the largest child

ETA, According a growth chart I was looking at, 34 lbs is the 95% for weight at 24 months.
So I guess it would not be hard to keep even the chunkiest kids in a seat until they were two.

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/growthcharts/boysbirth.html

 

A

andre149

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #4

Legally, I think two years and a weight minimum. Ideally 3, but I feel like that might lead to some confusion with kiddos that are over weight limits for rf seats by 3 years old and could lead to misuse.

 

LuckyFins3Lil'Fish

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #5

I chose 2 & no weight limit as well.

I'm not so sure saying 2 OR 30 would make any improvements as tons of kiddos are 30lbs before hitting 1. If it were OR & I wasn't safety concious then my DS would/could have FF at 9 months old.

 

Lea_Ontario

Well-known member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #6

I'm the one who put 3 yrs.

My reasoning is this - put the limit to 3 yrs, knowing that some people won't go that far, but we're more likely to see the kids RF until at least 2 yrs that way.

SO many times now, I see FF kids who aren't yet a year old, because the parents say they are "close enough" or "over 20 lbs" - even though the seat the kid is in specifically states 1 yr AND over 20 lbs for FF use.

If the seat says "3 yrs and over 30 lbs" the misuse will more likely be a 30-lb 2-yr old than a 20-lb 7-month old.

 

Cilia

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #7

I put 2 and a weight limit. If it was 30 pounds my 4.5 year old would just be turned . Not that that would be a bad thing.

 

G

Gypsy

Senior Community Member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #8

Age 4 or rear facing convertible carseat outgrown.

 

mamakc

Active member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #9

I said 4. I know the study we all referrence showed that it's 500% safer to RF between ages 1 and 2, but it doesn't STOP being safer after that. I think it should be a blanket rule that kids under 4 ride rear facing. No weight minimum. Just like it's a blanket rule now that infants ride rear-facing.

 

christineka

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #10

1 year and 25 pounds. My reasoning is, there are 1 year olds who are too big for sceneras. A 25 pound minimum would get a lot of kids to age 2. There are also some babies with real issues and forward facing would be better, though if we could get switches for our air bags, putting them up front might be a better solution. I would rather that the car seat manufacturers change the ffing minimums rather than the law.

 

G

Gypsy

Senior Community Member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #11

Considering that there have been no documented cases of rear facing children with catastrophic cervical spinal injuries, and the research out of Sweden strongly supports rear facing until age 4, I feel it should be age 4 or when a rear facing convertible carseat is outgrown. I hope (expect) that within the next 5 years, every convertible on the market will rear face a bare minimum of 40 pounds (likely 50 or more), so every child rear facing until age 4 should be easily accomplished. We just need laws to support it and parental education.

 

monica-m

CPST Instructor

• Dec 10, 2010

• #12

I said two with a weight minimum. I think it is the most realistic option. It makes me sick to my stomach to see kids FF before a year. It makes me uncomfortable to see them FF before 3 but I can live with it.

 

AtTheSouthDam

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #13

I like four. Two is nice but if we are going to make it a law, lets do one we aren't going to have to revamp in a few years to the optimum safety. So, four or until the safety seat is out grown. There are a few seats that can kids that far now and with the law there would be even more.

 

B

babyherder

Well-known member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #14

4 years old or 45lbs. 45 lbs because that's the highest rf weight limit on a legal car seat here.

 

vonfirmath

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #15

I'd like to see current laws enforced before we try to set any further laws (and they should NOT be set at the federal level).

There is a vast danger in creating more and more laws that are not enforced in creating an attitude of "laws don't matter"

It is better to change the attitudes of parents by educating than to put Yet Another Law on the books that will be flaunted openly.

 

fyrfightermomma

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #16

2 and no weight minimum.

2 or 30 won't work cause some 10 month olds are 30 lbs *cough cough*

2 AND 30 won't work cause my 5 1/2 year old 46" child would have to be RFing. Skinny minis sometimes don't hit 30 until age 4 or so.


So I say just age 2. That way you don't get those inbetween kids "stuck" between laws. We know there are 40-45 2 year olds and if the age was higher, what do you do? Or if you have an "AND" what do you do with the tall 5 year old who doesn't meet the limits? Not to mention the only 45 pound seat right now is huge, heavy, a PITA to install, and expensive. Not practical at all.

 

pepsicola

New member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #17

babyherder said:

4 years old or 45lbs. 45 lbs because that's the highest rf weight limit on a legal car seat here.

Click to expand...

But then, the parents of a very large 3 year old would be legally required to buy a Radian.

 

Lea_Ontario

Well-known member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #18

Why should they not be at federal levels ?

There is so much disparity between provinces / states that it confuses people already.

Make ONE set, and leave it at that.

 

Lea_Ontario

Well-known member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #19

pepsicola said:

But then, the parents of a very large 3 year old would be legally required to buy a Radian.

Click to expand...

Or other manufacturers would be forced to keep up.

 

B

babyherder

Well-known member

• Dec 10, 2010

• #20

pepsicola said:

But then, the parents of a very large 3 year old would be legally required to buy a Radian.

Click to expand...

Yeah. There's no perfect answer. Maybe just 4 and leave it at that. Then manufacturers would have to come up with higher weight seats. I was thinking of not requiring parents to import illegal seats (which is illegal anyway). I say we just ban car accidents.