How to tell people

Ok, so a surprisingly HUGE amount of people I talk to believe that it's more dangerous to leave a child rearfacing longer, than to turn them ffing as soon as possible. they think that their child could break a leg, I usually tell them I'd prefer a broken leg to a broken neck, and the other day I went all out describing what happens in a crash.
My question is, how do I tell people why it's not dangerous to rearface after their feet can touch the backseat, without sounding rude by saying "I'd rather a broken leg (Hip, w/e their concern) than a broken neck"?
I think because I feel the way I do about carseats, and it's more extreme than anyone around me, I'm starting to sound like a know it all to my friends.

Do you have links to some of the videos that you can show friends?

There has never been a documented case of broken legs in a collision as a result of rf'ing. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends rf'ing to the limits of the seat, and while the Canadian academy doesn't have the same recommendation, the alberta occupant restraint manual clearly states the benefits to remaining rf'ing.

I often approach people in an "I had no idea (fill in the blanks) that (fill in the blanks) was so important" or whatever - make it sound like I learned something that I just *have* to share with everyone.

There's always the whole side impact collisions are most dangerous/deadly, and a ff'ing child is 4 times more likely to be seriously injured or killed than a rf'ing child in a side impact collision. I also find it helps to explain the whole force being distributed along the entire back and the seat shell spreading out the force as opposed to how the whole head would go forward if a child was ff'ing.

There's also some neat anatomy at this link: (vertabrae and fusing info - from a textbook.)

http://www.windsorpeak.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=13&topic_id=44503&mesg_id=44503&page=2

Ultimately, some people will just roll their eyes at you, get tired of hearing about it, and you'll just have to bite your tongue. They'll just have to accept though that you're following best practice by keeping your child rf'ing, and that if they don't want to believe the facts, that's their problem. Remember this - legal does not equal safe.

And hey, like I said before - if you think they'll believe someone with official education and certification, put them in touch with me. Maybe they'd change their tune hearing it from someone else?

I would just say that the recommendation has changed, and that your seat is designed to allow rearfacing up to XX lbs.

Actually I do believe there is a statement on Transport Canada's website stating that you should RF to the limits of the seat....:thumbsup:

Off to find it again hopefully(I find government website are a never ending maze) and and will link to it.
If someone asks I share otherwise I hope to lead by example.

BudgieStew said:

Actually I do believe there is a statement on Transport Canada's website stating that you should RF to the limits of the seat....:thumbsup:

Off to find it again hopefully(I find government website are a never ending maze) and and will link to it.
If someone asks I share otherwise I hope to lead by example.

Click to expand...

http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/childsafety/1234/stage1/menu.htm

Don’t be in a hurry to start using a forward-facing child seat. The longer you use a rear-facing infant-only seat, infant /child seat, or infant/child/booster seat that fits correctly, even past your baby’s first birthday, the safer your baby will be in a crash. Be sure to follow the manufacturer’s instructions for use and check the label for the weight and height that are allowed.

Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

I found it like two seconds later edited my post but it seems to be stuck on reposting it..odd.
Don't be surprised if it finally comes through.