How many people do you think ignore 32" RF height limits?

I know the TC 32" RF height limit has been debated a lot around here, but reading the recent posts about insurance coverage got me thinking . . . .
How many people "in the know" (about RF safety) do you think RF their kids in direct contravention of their manuals (re: height, I know weight is not negotiable)? I know we do, because we have a new MA bought specifically so that we could RF longer. When I read the manual and saw the 32" limit I flipped out (I guess I assumed there would be the 1" rule in there too or something). We follow the manual so carefully in every other respect and now I am very uneasy about it.

Plus, there is a woman at my son's daycare who seemed genuinely interested in why we were RFing a 20 month old (her baby is turning one very soon). I gave her some information, but couldn't really rationalize that we were going against what the manual says. I didn't even think of the insurance issues! If I see her again I'm going to remind her about this site for more details about such issues.

I don't know if anyone wants to weigh in on this issue, but I guess I just am having very conflicted feelings about RFing today . . . .

Any thoughts??

All of the parents I come into contact with, that choose to keep their kids RFing, ignore that 'rule'. We are specifically taught the 1" rule in our tech course and taught to teach parents to ignore the stated height limits.

I don't know why they continue to put it in manuals, other than most parents like to see a numerical limit and that's a safe number all around.

It is *NOT* TC's rule, it's not found anywhere in the compliance instructions. In fact, the dummy they use to test these seats is taller than 32".

I'd rather have my child RFing to the 1" rule and *know* I protected them as best as I could vs. turning them forward early and have them injured when I know I could have protected them better.

If the 1" rule is something that really bothers you, then I'd recommend getting an EFTA or TF (neither of which have a stated height limit).

Thanks so much, Jen. I guess it is just my "good girl" side coming out and feeling a bit weird about ignoring a "rule". We will definitely keep RFing in the MA, but the recent posts on the topic made me wonder.

Thanks too for clarifying about TC (I must have misread something else).

I ignore the height number, and go by the 1 inch rule. Its also what I teach my friends and family.

I've talked to several parents of FF toddlers, about ERF. Almost every one told me that it sounds great but that their seat only allows them to RF until 32". So, the good side of that is, the parents actually read the manuals! The bad side, people ARE following that rule and flipping their kids way too soon. Even when I explain the 1" thing, they don't listen because the 32" height limit is in the warning section where it says "death or serious injury may occur if you don't follow this".

I had MANY complaints about the 32" rule and I talked to both SK and Britax about it. SK promised me they would look into it and shortly after there was a SK chat here and I believe they mentioned they were investigating. :thumb Britax has never responded to me.

I happened to get REALLY lucky and the TF was released right when DD was outgrown her SS and 31-31.5" tall. If the TF wouldn't have come out, I would have exceeded the limit in the Marathon (the EFTA did not work at all in our vehicle). I figure worrying about insurance/liability was likely a low risk since the chance of my child being seriously injured while RF was so much less than if I put her FF.

This is a long answer, and I've posted it a few times in the past, but it's been awhile so I'll post it again. :thumbsup:

I was very aware of erf'ing when dd was born and already planned to keep her rf'ing longer. I'm also a rule follower... so when she hit 32" at 18mos, I turned her ff'ing despite not liking it and her being a couple ozs shy of 22lbs... Cosco/Dorel had told me she "didn't fit the seat in either direction" and to "buy another seat." And that they couldn't advise me on what to do... local police were useless, and the provincial safety guy I got ahold of told me to follow the height limit. 2 days later TC called me back and told me that it was more important to get her to 22lbs and that the 1" rule could be used until she hit 22lbs - he joked to take her to mcdonald's to have her gain those extra couple ozs. By that point I'd had the seat out,cleaned, and reinstalled ff'ing... and it was a 3in1, so a real PITA to install. I left it ff'ing because she was a couple ozs away from 22lbs and it sounded like she'd have to ff after that anyways. And I figured it was the lesser of 2 evils.

In my defense, I really & truly tried to get to the base of keeping her rf'ing past the 32", and then I worried probably for the next 6 to 9months after her ff'ing when I wanted her rf'ing.

I found this site when pregnant with ds, and while I then knew about height guidelines being approximate, I still wasn't comfortable with going against my manual. I'm a rule follower, remember? Somewhat ironically, I turned dd rf'ing again when she was 30mos old mostly due to pressure on here. (You may notice I never pressure people in to rf'ing, I hated that pressure. ) I was still uncomfortable going against the limit, but basically made the decision to follow accepted best practice.

I became a tech a year ago this last June. Jillian was ff'ing again due to being over the rf'ing weight limit by that point. Jonas still had lots of height room before exceeding any numerical rf'ing limit. Had I been in the position of having to choose to ff or exceed the numerical height limit with him, I would've exceeded the numerical height limit without hesitation. Instead, I own 2 seats that have a 1" from top of shell rule. I like them better anyways, so it's no loss in that regard.

I have real issue with the 32" limit. The manufacturers using it are being overly cautious in their interpretation of CMVSS which only requires that a height limit be listed for the size of child the seat is designed for. It doesn't say that there has to be a separate one listed for rf'ing and ff'ing, but that's what the 32" manufacturers are doing... It seems rather dumb to me that Britax puts a 32" limit on the MA while the SS1 has a 32" limit. Considering they both have the same weight limit, if parent was going to follow the height limit, there wouldn't be much advantage to getting a convertible seat if a parent bought a SS1... This really bugs me because just looking at it you know the seat has to fit longer. It's a ridiculously low # and Britax could choose to use a higher # if they really feel the need to put a numerical rf'ing limit on their seats. But they don't. Maybe for the same reason they also aren't raising the rf'ing weight limits despite knowing TC allows it?

So anyways, I think a good # of parents do follow it, and a good # would have problems with exceeding it. I'm glad that we have the option of seats without a numerical height limit for those cases. I do educate parents on the 1" rule, but have no qualms about recommending a seat without a numerical limit if the parents is clearly concerned about the 32" thing.

I'm one who has made the parental decision to forgo the 32" length limit on our seats, and instead follow the industry standard of 1" of hard seat shell.

I'm not entirely comfortable with it, but I'm less comfortable with ff at our dd's age and weight (28mos, 26lbs, she's 36" in length).

I'm aware that we have seats on the market with no numerical rf height limit, but I prefer the seats we own now. Period.

As for the insurance issue, I play the devil's advocate on this one...

In order for there to be an issue I need to be in a collision. If I'm in a collision I want dd to be as protected as possible. If she's injured rf, then IMHO she would have been more severely injured ff. We know that rf is safER in All types of collisions. I'm just not willing to pander to these manufacturer's who FAIK refuse to make the necessary manual/sticker changes because it costs too much. I'm also not swayed by more mainstream companies (with new seats on the market) that swoop in with a 1" rule on their seats. I'm hopeful companies like Britax & SK get with the program PDQ at this point, but for now, I'm content with the decision I've made. :twocents:

I personally ignored the 32" RF rule on my Marathon when I was using it. I had a situation kind of similar to Trudy. Although my son was not quite 1 year of age, he was scarily close to 32" in height. I was already so worried that we weren't going to be able to ERF very long because of weight that I chose to ignore the 32" height restriction. In any case, I ended up turning him just over 17 months because he had hit the 30 pound weight limit (and at that point was definitely over 32" in height.)

He is now RF again in a True Fit, which I am happy about both for the increased weight limit and the 1" rule. Since it's got a nice tall shell I don't have to worry about him outgrowing it by height RF at all. By weight, I think we'll make it past his 2nd birthday. Not by much, I'm guessing, since he seems to be in the throws of another growth spurt, but a little.

When our new baby comes and moves out of the bucket, they'll be going into the MA. And if the situation arises, I will once again ignore the 32" rule. And although it's written in the manuals of car seats I see, I still recommend ERF to parents, while explaining to them what is in the manual. Then it's their decision what they would like to do.

I am ignoring it. I have an older MA with no height restriction for rfing and a 33 lb weight limit. I also have a newer one with the limits. They are the same seat and I intend to use them as the same seat. My dd is 2.5 and 27.5 pounds. She's at least 35 inches tall and all leg. She still has tons of room over her head and she is going to stay rfing - it's a dumb rule. :thumbsdown:

We ignored it for a short time - DS was 32" by about 11 months or so. However, he was also getting close to 30lbs by 12 months, so we stepped up to a TF for the extra 5lbs RFing - and the 1" rule is a nice side benefit. I was willing to ignore the 32" rule, but I feel more comfortable going "by the book" on the True Fit.

mama2three said:

I have an older MA with no height restriction for rfing and a 33 lb weight limit. I also have a newer one with the limits. They are the same seat and I intend to use them as the same seat.

Click to expand...

:yeahthat: Notwithstanding my "brief" on the legal situation in prior threads....

Not to highjack, but does anyone else find it humorous that many parents pay such close attention to their child being within the height limits but don't seem to be nearly that persistent in making sure the seat is installed and used correctly. Makes no sense to me.