Rear Facing til 2..

[bubbaray]

The NHTSA flyer linked to in post #8 of this thread definitely DOES say to booster to age 4-7. And it says to harness until the limits of the harnessed seat. Well, that could be age 8-9 for some kids in some of the HW/HH seats.

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to support harnessing past age 5-ish and 40lbs. The Swedes have stellar child crash statistics and they go directly from RFg to boosters at age 4-5. They don't generally FFg harness at all. It may or may not be a valid comparison, given the differences in vehicles, driving style, etc, but the Swedish stats are pretty compelling to me.

JMHO.

 

[gsdguenter]

I have to say what may help too is giving correct information and not how youve decided to apply it.
http://ebookbrowse.com/nhtsa-4-step-flyer-pdf-d302955946
NHSTA flier says

1 – 3 years

Keep your child rear-facing as long as possible. It’s the best way to keep him or her safe. Your child should remain in a rear-facing car
seat until he or she reaches the top height or weight limit allowed by your car seat’s manufacturer. Once your child outgrows the
rear-facing car seat, your child is ready to travel in a forward-facing car seat with a harness.

4 – 7 years

Keep your child in a forward-facing car seat with a harness until he or she reaches the top height or weight limit allowed by your
car seat’s manufacturer. Once your child outgrows the forward-facing car seat with a harness, it’s time to travel in a booster seat,
but still in the back seat.
We need to give correct information and let the parents decide where they draw the lines for their child.

This is exactly what I do.

I think it's important people realize 1-3 means up until the 4th birthday, not up until the 3rd birthday. That's a big difference.

 

[Baylor]

The NHTSA flyer linked to in post #8 of this thread definitely DOES say to booster to age 4-7. And it says to harness until the limits of the harnessed seat. Well, that could be age 8-9 for some kids in some of the HW/HH seats.

I'm not aware of any scientific evidence to support harnessing past age 5-ish and 40lbs. The Swedes have stellar child crash statistics and they go directly from RFg to boosters at age 4-5. They don't generally FFg harness at all. It may or may not be a valid comparison, given the differences in vehicles, driving style, etc, but the Swedish stats are pretty compelling to me.

JMHO.

And another point. We rf longer because of the swedes right? However when asked if someone should booster a 4 yrold the answer is usually no.

Now there are 4 yr olds I know who are fine and those that aren't but if the swedes have it right how come we don't just booster at 4//5 also?

auto correct hates me

 

[Baylor]

But it does not say 1-3. In that age bracket it says til convertible is outgrown then switch ff

Am I the only one reading it that way? There is a ff seat in the visual.

auto correct hates me

 

[Brianna]

1 – 3 years
Keep your child rear-facing as long as possible. It’s the best way to keep him or her safe. Your child should remain in a rear-facing car
seat until he or she reaches the top height or weight limit allowed by your car seat’s manufacturer. Once your child outgrows the
rear-facing car seat, your child is ready to travel in a forward-facing car seat with a harness.

That to me means that if the child still fits by height and weight rear facing, they should remain rear facing until the day before their 4th birthday.

 

[bubbaray]

I think it's important people realize 1-3 means up until the 4th birthday, not up until the 3rd birthday. That's a big difference.

I think Baylor's point is that the NHTSA is NOT saying to RF to the 4th birthday. It is saying stay in a harnessed seat until then (and to RF to the limits of the harnessed seat). At least, that is how I read that brochure.

 

[thekatie]

I read it (in a non tech manner) as a couple of options...

IF you have a seat that your child -could- fit rear facing in until age... I dunno... 10, then they still only recommend keeping that child rear facing through age 3. So in THAT scenario, they DO recommend keeping rear facing until the child turns 4.

BUT, if you have a seat your child outgrows rear facing at, say, 18 months, then they are saying its okay to go forward, because it has met the other part, about using to the limits of the seat then flipping it.

That's just how I read it.

 

[Baylor]

I think Baylor's point is that the NHTSA is NOT saying to RF to the 4th birthday. It is saying stay in a harnessed seat until then (and to RF to the limits of the harnessed seat). At least, that is how I read that brochure.

Yes ! Thank you!!!

And please know I'm trying to be argumentative I'm confused and trying to get a good clear fix on this.

auto correct hates me

 

[bubbaray]

And another point. We rf longer because of the swedes right? However when asked if someone should booster a 4 yrold the answer is usually no.

Now there are 4 yr olds I know who are fine and those that aren't but if the swedes have it right how come we don't just booster at 4//5 also?

auto correct hates me

I personally am on the fence about boostering a 4yo. I am going to ask a parent a lot more questions about "maturity" with a child under 5 than I am about a 5yo. But, yeah, *I* am not going to lose a lot of sleep about a parent making an educated choice to booster a mature 4yo (over 40lbs) especially if they cite the Swedes.

Its not a huge issue for me because kids here are (generally) lighter-weight than kids in the USA, so there aren't a huge number of 40lb kids under age 5-ish. There are some, but not huge numbers. At least not here in the Vancouver area. My 8yo can swing down to 40lbs after a tummy bug (but she is on the tiny side).

 

[gsdguenter]

I think we might be all saying the same thing, but in different ways lol

 

[lovemy2kidstw]

But it does not say 1-3. In that age bracket it says til convertible is outgrown then switch ff

Am I the only one reading it that way? There is a ff seat in the visual.

auto correct hates me

I am reading it the same as you. Example, child 1 has a scenera, child should RF to the limits & then switch to FF. Child 2 has a complete air, child should RF to the limits & then switch to FF. Both are following the guidelines, but both children will be FF at different times by following height & weight limits.

Not everyone is going to buy a higher weight/ height seat to RF once their child has outgrown the scenera, so if they turn them FF then they are following the guidelines.

 

[LISmama810]

And another point. We rf longer because of the swedes right? However when asked if someone should booster a 4 yrold the answer is usually no.

Now there are 4 yr olds I know who are fine and those that aren't but if the swedes have it right how come we don't just booster at 4//5 also?

auto correct hates me

No, we don't RF longer "because of the Swedes." We RF longer because it is safer. (Safer for 2-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 50-year-olds...just at some point it becomes impractical.)

The Swedes beat us by far on RFing for a long time. Just because they were right about that doesn't mean that they're right about boostering immediately afterwards. Or maybe they are. But there's no proof.

As for whether we use NHTSA or AAP, and whether 1-3 means until the third birthday or until the fourth one, or whether "harness as long as possible" means "not only until 2" or "until 11" is somewhat irrelevant. The recommendations are kind of all over the place. (Harness until 4-7? That's a big range as it is.) The point is that we try to keep kids safe by giving REASONABLE advice.

 

[Baylor]

No, we don't RF longer "because of the Swedes." We RF longer because it is safer. (Safer for 2-year-olds, 9-year-olds, 50-year-olds...just at some point it becomes impractical.)

The Swedes beat us by far on RFing for a long time. Just because they were right about that doesn't mean that they're right about boostering immediately afterwards. Or maybe they are. But there's no proof.

As for whether we use NHTSA or AAP, and whether 1-3 means until the third birthday or until the fourth one, or whether "harness as long as possible" means "not only until 2" or "until 11" is somewhat irrelevant. The recommendations are kind of all over the place. (Harness until 4-7? That's a big range as it is.) The point is that we try to keep kids safe by giving REASONABLE advice.

Point taken. I just seemed to pick up here somewhere that it's what our new rfing guidelines were modeled after because of their safety record.

auto correct hates me

 

[gsdguenter]

That to me means that if the child still fits by height and weight rear facing, they should remain rear facing until the day before their 4th birthday.

Yes, me too. And if they are less than 4 yrs old and outgrow their rf seat, then they should ff harness.

I do think we should start a ff harness thread, because I don't see harnessing 4-7 as necessary, IMO. For some, sure, but not necessary for all, or even maybe most.

 

[Carrie_R]

I agree that I'd like to see a NHTSA 4-7/FF harness thread. Advocating for ERF is easy, and makes sense, because we have studies to back it up. But there is no study, insofar as I know, that discusses harness vs. booster for most of that age group. There are studies that talk about booster vs seatbelt, restraint effectiveness in general, and (IIRC) increased head injuries in booster riders under 5. We have some handle on the physiological changes that are in play in terms of safety for turning FF, and likewise moving to an adult belt, but no such data for moving from a harness to a booster. I would be very curious to know what NHTSA used as the basis for that recommendation.

Also, to address a point from earlier in the thread... Remember that booster readiness is part behavioral but also part physiological. Even an emotionally mature 3yo, capable of sitting still, has the skeleton of a 3yo and is at risk of submarining and I believe head injures, at a minimum. I've also read insinuation here and there that those very small booster riders may not have the mass to cause the belt to lock in certain scenarios. I don't have studies to point to offhand, but those are major concerns I want to make sure are brought up - mainly so that those lurking don't take the lack of dialogue on that point as approval.

I have more thoughts, especially on the approach in "car seat questions" vs "carseat chat"/WWYD, but they'll have to wait. The dishwasher is calling.

 

[carseatcoach]

Point taken. I just seemed to pick up here somewhere that it's what our new rfing guidelines were modeled after because of their safety record.

auto correct hates me

Somebody may indeed have speculated about that. That doesn't make it accurate. The guidelines to rear-face to the limits of the seat are NOT NEW: they are at least ten years old (because I knew them when my daughter was born) and I think go back to 2001.

 

[CTPDMom]

Somebody may indeed have speculated about that. That doesn't make it accurate. The guidelines to rear-face to the limits of the seat are NOT NEW: they are at least ten years old (because I knew them when my daughter was born) and I think go back to 2001.

This is accurate...the 'to the limits of the seat' wording was in the 2001 wording of the AAP guidelines.

But it's important to note there were NO 40lbs+ rear-facing capable seats back then. Maybe a 35lbs, but doubtful. My guess is the highest in 2001 was likely 30lbs, if that.

 

[carseatcoach]

I'm 95% sure Sceneras were 35# in 2002.

 

[bree]

This is accurate...the 'to the limits of the seat' wording was in the 2001 wording of the AAP guidelines.

But it's important to note there were NO 40lbs+ rear-facing capable seats back then. Maybe a 35lbs, but doubtful. My guess is the highest in 2001 was likely 30lbs, if that.

Yes, but those AAP guidelines from back in the day also included the note that "Manufacturers should be encouraged to develop car safety seats that accommodate children rear facing to 4 years of age (45 lb)." This was the statement back from 2001/2002. (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/3/550.full)

 

[4boysmom]

This is accurate...the 'to the limits of the seat' wording was in the 2001 wording of the AAP guidelines.

But it's important to note there were NO 40lbs+ rear-facing capable seats back then. Maybe a 35lbs, but doubtful. My guess is the highest in 2001 was likely 30lbs, if that.

My son was born in 2001 and iirc that was the time of the 30 pound britax that was retroed to 32 or 33 in 2003ish. So yeah 30 was the max around that time and 32 and 33 were the beginings of a big deal lol.