wagonlover
New member
"All infants and toddlers should ride in a rear-facing car safety seat (CSS) until they are 2 years of age or until they reach the highest weight or height allowed by the manufacturer of their CSS." - American Academy of Pediatrics 2011
I had commented recently on the excellent recent series on the blog about the statistics regarding and benefits of extended RF that I think the wording of the AAP statement is problematic. It seems to get interpreted as saying that children should be turned forward at 2 yo rather than 2 yo being a minimum. The message about the benefits of ERF is lost. I was just wondering what everyone else's experience has been regarding interpretation of the statement?
Because of this site, DD is still RF at 5, but I have gotten criticism for years from people who think I should have turned her FF long ago. In a horrifying example, a woman came up to DH in a parking lot after seeing our RF seats and told him in so many words that we were going to kill our kids because we hadn't turned them FF yet. I realize that the original intent of the statement was to move the minimum age to turn forward from 1 to 2, and it seems to have been successful at doing that in many people's minds. RF height and weight limits on seats have improved in a short time, and it is much easier to keep a child RF to 2 than it was at the time of the statement. Because of the wording, though, I think many people don't realize that they should stay RF beyond 2 if the seat has the capacity. The AAP statement seems to carry particular weight because it is concise, and it is what pediatricians tell parents. I just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts are on this?
I had commented recently on the excellent recent series on the blog about the statistics regarding and benefits of extended RF that I think the wording of the AAP statement is problematic. It seems to get interpreted as saying that children should be turned forward at 2 yo rather than 2 yo being a minimum. The message about the benefits of ERF is lost. I was just wondering what everyone else's experience has been regarding interpretation of the statement?
Because of this site, DD is still RF at 5, but I have gotten criticism for years from people who think I should have turned her FF long ago. In a horrifying example, a woman came up to DH in a parking lot after seeing our RF seats and told him in so many words that we were going to kill our kids because we hadn't turned them FF yet. I realize that the original intent of the statement was to move the minimum age to turn forward from 1 to 2, and it seems to have been successful at doing that in many people's minds. RF height and weight limits on seats have improved in a short time, and it is much easier to keep a child RF to 2 than it was at the time of the statement. Because of the wording, though, I think many people don't realize that they should stay RF beyond 2 if the seat has the capacity. The AAP statement seems to carry particular weight because it is concise, and it is what pediatricians tell parents. I just wanted to see what everyone's thoughts are on this?
Last edited: