Is there evidence supporting ERF past 2 years old?

mslancast

New member
I have done some research about extended rear facing over the past few years. However, the studies that I have seen quoted all state that "ERF has been shown to be 5x safer than forward facing *up to 23 months.*" I see lots of parents here who are ERF up to 4 and even 5 years old. Is there an evidence basis for ERF past 2 years of age, or is it just an extra safety precaution?

Here is our situation - DD2 is 29 months, 33lb. She has been FF in our Roundabout since around 2 years old. We just ordered a Regent for her so we can put DD3 into the RA. The RA expires in less than a year, so we are also going to have to get a new seat for DD3. In researching seats for her, I have discovered the higher weight RF seats like the My Ride & True Fit Premier. Now I'm wondering if I should get one of those seats, turn DD2 back to RF until the RA expires (DD2 will then be closer to 3-1/2), and then move DD2 to the Regent and DD3 to the other seat. I hate the fact that the Regent would just be sitting in storage, basically burning time. If I keep DD2 FF, I won't have to buy a new seat for DD3 for another 9 months or so.

Any thoughts?
 
ADS

lovinwaves

New member
Hi, and welcome to the forum :)

I have two kids that are still rear-facing (although I have no qualms with them riding forward-facing now). One is 5 years old, and the other is almost 4 years old. They seem to prefer rear-facing. They are reclined (like a big lazy chair), and they are able to rest their feet and not have them dangling. They have also been accustomed to this for several years now. I'm not sure they realize they can face forward (kidding!) :p

I guess another reason I don't mind them rear-facing is because it is in my belief that there could be a lesser risk of injury to them in the event of a severe crash. Now, I'm not sure what my chances are of being in a severe crash are (I would imagine pretty slim), but knowing they are rear-facing seems to me that if they were to incur injuries, it would be less than if they were forward-facing.

At some point it becomes what parents are just comfortable with. Our kids rear-facing, I am ok with it, and DH is ok with it, so that's the way they are. I have absolutely no issue with them riding forward-facing in someone elses car, or occassionally in mine (usually to accommodate a passenger with us.)

I know you were looking for research and statistics, which Jools linked you to above, but I thought I would give you our situation since you mentioned you noticed several people on this forum have kids still rear-facing to 4 and 5 years old. :)
 

firemomof3

New member
I also was asking myself this same question because my 3.5y/o was really wanting to be forward facing even though she is only 30lbs. and petite. It got to the point where there was a fight and tears everytime! So, I turned her ff and she was happy until we went on a 2 hour drive and she complained that her legs hurt. She said she wanted to go back rf because it was more comfortable :D
My next concern was how she sat in her Radian, with her legs draped over the sides. It has crossed my mind that her leg could be injured in a side impact crash. So I asked another member who is in Sweden what his opinion was and here was his response:

"Rear facing at 3.5 is not 500% safer but it's still a huge safety benefit. Turning your daughter forward facing would be FAR less safe. She would then keep her legs straight but her protection from side impact collisions would be very poor.

Side impact crashes account for about 25% of total but are the deadliest kind. In a rear facing seat your daughter is pushed into the seat at impact (due to pre-impact braking) from the side giving her great protection. It's possible but unlikely her leg would be injured. It would have to be a very severe collision.

If your daughter would be forward facing, protection from side impact collisions would be limited due to pre-impact braking. Her leg would be fine but her head would be thrown forward and almost completely without protection.

Let me put it this way: Your daughters leg is more at risk while rear facing but her life is far more at risk if you turn her around. Legs we can fix, head and neck area are not so easy to fix..... Benefits of her sitting rear facing are still overall very large."


So, now I remind her to sit "criss cross applesauce" and this has worked for us.
 

kittykate

New member
"Rear facing at 3.5 is not 500% safer but it's still a huge safety benefit. Turning your daughter forward facing would be FAR less safe. She would then keep her legs straight but her protection from side impact collisions would be very poor.

Side impact crashes account for about 25% of total but are the deadliest kind. In a rear facing seat your daughter is pushed into the seat at impact (due to pre-impact braking) from the side giving her great protection. It's possible but unlikely her leg would be injured. It would have to be a very severe collision.

If your daughter would be forward facing, protection from side impact collisions would be limited due to pre-impact braking. Her leg would be fine but her head would be thrown forward and almost completely without protection.

Let me put it this way: Your daughters leg is more at risk while rear facing but her life is far more at risk if you turn her around. Legs we can fix, head and neck area are not so easy to fix..... Benefits of her sitting rear facing are still overall very large."

I know it is not your quote, but this doesn't make any sense to me and maybe someone can explain a little more?

What throws me is the assumption that most people would be braking at the time of a side impact collision. I have been in several side impacts unfortunately (not as the driver) and I have never seen the driver of the side impacted car brake unless the impact was occurring at the very front part of the vehicle.

Are there statistics that support that most vehicles being hit in a side impact attempt to break before the impact? :confused:
 

Maedze

New member
I'm not sure that quote is reflective of actual facts :eek:

There are statistics that show the greatest benefit to rear facing beyond one is to children in side-impact crashes. This is not respective of pre-impact braking, or pre-impact leg position.
 

o_mom

New member
I know it is not your quote, but this doesn't make any sense to me and maybe someone can explain a little more?

What throws me is the assumption that most people would be braking at the time of a side impact collision. I have been in several side impacts unfortunately (not as the driver) and I have never seen the driver of the side impacted car brake unless the impact was occurring at the very front part of the vehicle.

Are there statistics that support that most vehicles being hit in a side impact attempt to break before the impact? :confused:

I don't think it is the braking so much as that the car that is hit in a side impact is usually travelling forward, so there is a forward component to the momentum. When that momentum changes at the impact, the child will continue moving forward before being moved sideways. For a forward-facing child, their head will come forward first, then to the side, which puts them out of the the protective shell and EPS foam. They can wrap around the seat or be struck by intruding objects. A rear-facing child, OTOH, will be pushed into the back of the carseat and remain within the shell when the momentum shifts to sideways, keeping them in the protective zone of the carseat shell and EPS foam.
 

MommyBoha

New member
For me its what I feel safer with. DD is 3 years9months and just went FF this week and she hit 32lbs(her seat goes to 33) I WISH she could still RF and am debating a new seat.
 

LISmama810

Admin - CPS Technician
Statistics or not, rear-facing make logical sense.

Everyone would be safer rear-facing. In a rear-facing seat, it's the back of the seat--rather than the child's neck--taking the impact. Even adults would be safer without their heads flying forward.

Young children (not just babies) still have big heads and immature skeletons. It makes sense to protect them as long as possible.

That said, at some point everyone has to go forward-facing, so at some point it becomes a matter of preference or necessity. When is "that point"? I don't know, and it will vary based on several factors. I personally will rear-face my daughter until 3, no matter what, and will reevaluate at that point.
 

TechnoGranola

Forum Ambassador
The others have already made the points about RF, I just wanted you to make sure that your DD still fits RF in the RA. From what I've read here, the RA is quite a small seat so it's possible your DD has outgrown it RF already or will do so before it expires.
 

mslancast

New member
The others have already made the points about RF, I just wanted you to make sure that your DD still fits RF in the RA. From what I've read here, the RA is quite a small seat so it's possible your DD has outgrown it RF already or will do so before it expires.

Thanks, Techno. She actually has outgrown the RA. If we turned her back to RF, we would buy a new seat and put DD2 in it while the baby is in the RA. When the RA expires within the year, we would turn DD2 back to FF in her Regent and put the baby in the newer seat. Well, I guess I need to keep talking to DH about it and see if DD2 will tolerate being turn back to RF. Thanks for the info, all.
 

TechnoGranola

Forum Ambassador
Thanks, Techno. She actually has outgrown the RA. If we turned her back to RF, we would buy a new seat and put DD2 in it while the baby is in the RA. When the RA expires within the year, we would turn DD2 back to FF in her Regent and put the baby in the newer seat. Well, I guess I need to keep talking to DH about it and see if DD2 will tolerate being turn back to RF. Thanks for the info, all.
Ah, sorry, I hadn't caught that the first time. Now that I read again, I see you say DD 3 in the RA. :thumbsup:
 

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Forum statistics

Threads
219,656
Messages
2,196,898
Members
13,530
Latest member
onehitko860

You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.

Graco is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Britax is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org! Nuna Baby is a Proud Sponsor of Car-Seat.Org!

Please  Support Car-Seat.Org  with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC

Top