Dh's ERF woes

[RJB78]

I was practically in tears (although not really surprised) when we had to turn her - I'd really hoped to make it to three....

That's the way I think I'm going to feel - I'm terrified to turn her!

 

[Splash]

That's the way I think I'm going to feel - I'm terrified to turn her!

Why?

It's not something to be terrified about. It's a passage in life. You've kept her as safe as possible for as long as possible, time to move on. Yes, it's less safe to be FF, but it's not UNsafe in the grand scheme of things. Riding in a car is unsafe, period. You do your best to be as safe as possible and then hope for the best. But you should not be terrified... decisions made from fear are rarely the "right" thing. Once you've done as much as you can with what you have, time to move on. But don't be paralyzed by some fear of forward facing. I admit I wish my son had lasted longer than he did, but he didn't. I wasn't terrified or heart broken for him to face forward... and I could turn him back now that the weather is cooler if I wanted to... he's got another pound or so. But I won't. Yes, it would be safer, but he is not in an unsafe situation. He's in safe vehicles in properly installed and very safe car seats. The biggest benefit to RF comes in side impacts anyway, not frontal.

But don't be terrified about her growing up. That's not healthy. A paralyzing fear that forward facing means death is not the message that anyone wants to convey, which is why I am disturbed by some of the comments on this thread that were made about funerals and death. Is RF safer? Of course. So is taking the subway or walking. So is sleeping on the floor and eating food we've grown ourselves. So is being in an Accord over a Cavalier. But not all of those are possibilities for real life. Some people can walk to the subway station and take the train wherever they need to be and eliminate the single biggest danger in daily life. Most can't. Some people can put Boulevards in the center of a Honda Odyssey. Some kids have to sit outboard in an a Saturn Ion in a Scenera.

There is ALWAYS going to be a situation that is safer. Always. But eventually you have to accept that you are being as safe as is practically possible and move on.

 

[southpawboston]

wonderful perspective on the broader picture, splash. :thumbsup:

 

[RJB78]

There is ALWAYS going to be a situation that is safer.

I am a worry wart. And discovering this board has made me more so!

And I must say that your post - especially this last part - sounded EXACTLY like my dh. He is a science teacher; he knows his physics. Crash tests don't phase him. He just thinks it's time for her to turn. He is always bringing up the fact that "If you want her to be the safest she can possibly be, then make her wear a helmet in the car or don't drive anywhere at all." Even the part about fear driving me sounded like him. He is a Star Wars geek, so he has been known to say "Fear is the path to the dark side." LOL I have to get him to come read this.

 

[southpawboston]

actually, wearing a helmet in the car, from a purely physics point of view, may actually be a liability. it adds weight that must be supported by the neck. in a frontal collision, this puts much more strain on the neck. point this out to your science teacher husband

but i generally agree about safety and living life. you have to sacrifice safety at some levels to live your life. look, i ride my DD1 to preschool on my bike with a bike-mounted rear child carrier. statistically, i am sure it is much more dangerous than driving her the in the car the 1.7 miles (which would take 30 minutes in our town because we would have to shark for street parking). but it is a safety sacrifice i make (with my DW) for the life experience of riding a bicycle and enjoying the intimate time with her. it also saves us a lot of time (10 minutes on the bike vs 30 by car vs 35 walking), as well as pollutes the world less and reduces dependence on oil. it's a decision we have to make and live with.

i'm also not going to force my child to wear goggles and a helmet playing routine sports that don't customarily use them, even though she'd be much more safe wearing them.

i don't understand parents who want to turn their kids early.... the safety hit far outstrips the slight gain in convenience of turning FF. but at 2/30, i can see how plenty of parents are willing to take that minor hit in safety for whatever gain in convenience, happiness, or whatever feeling they may get from turning their kiddo forward.

 

[Kat_Momof3]

I would say three is more crucial then two if you can manage it - three is when the bones in the spinal column starts to calcify. That said, Joyjoy had to be turned at 2 1/2 because she weighed 34 lbs and we didn't own a scale.

That's a really good point!!

But I'm kind of going by the MSNBC article... it's data convinced a lot of people who would otherwise have flipped at 1 to try to get to 2...

now if they could do more research to prove the new minimum should be 3... that would be fabulous.


Splash - great perspective! I know I wasn't terrified to turn Ruthie, either... though I hated it.... I was more afraid of the screaming... she'd done that when we had to flip her for one day at 13mo and whenever she was with my mom (she was ff then)

I was so happy to flip her back and she was so happy to go back rf when she dropped weight...

I was much more comfortable with i at 2.5yrs... she didn't have that terrified look on her face, thoug she still didn't know what to do with her legs, and she filled the seat so much more.

 

[safeinthecar]

My ex and I fought about nearly every aspect in life except ,for some odd reason, carseats. ( although sometimes he got annoyed about spending money on them, he never had any problem with using the seats we actually had according to best practice). When dd2 was 23 months old, about 26-27lbs he sprained his ankle badly and made the choice to ff her in his car ( 2 doors, 3 across ) until it healed. I wasn't happy about this, but I could live with it to avoid fighting about the one thing we normally agreed on.

Maybe a similar compromise will work for you. You can put her ffing in the EB in his car when she outgrows it, and rfing in your car.

 

[skaterbabs]

Most people simply don't know where the old minimum came from in the first place, so the blindly follow that and think those of us who go beyond are just weird.

But the old minimum of 20 lbs (to which 12 months was added a few years ago), comes from a time in which there were no seats available that RF past 20 lbs. Parents with a 20 lbs 6 month old had two choices : FF or RF past the limit.

Now all but two seats on the market RF to at least 30 lbs, and 35 lbs is becomming more and more available. Who knows - in ten more years we might just be looking at 40 lb RF limits.

 

[safeinthecar]

in ten more years we might just be looking at 40 lb RF limits.

I'll be waiting with baited breath.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to get a Swedish 55# rfing seat. I passed it up because I was easily able to rf my 2 youngest kiddos past age 3 with US seats ( and because I didn't have a spare 1000 dollars lying around). It amuses me now to think that if I had done it my 8 yo would still be rfing.

 

[Synchro246]

His only reasoning? He thinks it looks weird for a child that old to be rfing. That's it. He says she is plenty big enough (past one year and 20 lbs) to be turned forward. She is ~29 lbs and 35" now.

I wouldn't even talk about the statistics more as he's stuck on an image thing. I'd address that. I'd say something like "why does it look weird for her to be RFing at this age?" . . ."oh, because most kids are FF at this age? Well, in some cultures it may look weird to put a kid in a seat at all, but really keeping her rear facing is simple and the other two year olds aren't picking on her for RFing so why not keep her RF? If someone picks on you for having her RF they really need to get a life" or something to that effect