What should be the legal ff minimum?

[Minnesota]

I personally would like to see a minimum of 2 and 30. I think that's realistically attainable for more people, and would provide an extra year of protection over current guidelines.

 

[joolsplus3]

2 or 30. Speaking of making manufacturers keep up, I'd say 2 or 35 as long as the ComfortSport finally gets off the market, it's the lone holdout at that limit. I'll say 2 or 40 when all seats go that high.

JMHO, of course. Yeah, some kids will slip through the cracks, but it gets the number TWO out there as something to shoot for...people generally know they are supposed to shoot for ONE now, so setting the bar higher will get most kids safer, just not the big 'uns in CS's

 

[kittykate]

Two and no weight limit.

I have tall kiddos and rear facing to 4 just isn't possible with the current seats on the market and my vehicle. :twocents:

 

[hrice]

I would say 2 or 35#

The cheapest convertible on the market will RF to 35.

 

[christineka]

The cheapest convertible on the market will RF to 35.

It does rf to 35 pounds, but some kids are taller than their weight. I've heard of lighter kids outgrowing the scenera by height.

 

[carseatcoach]

2y AND 20# AND proper use (no Frontier before 25#, no TrueFit before 23#, etc.). Of course proper use makes the 20# moot, but I still want it in there.

 

[Spam]

With seats that are available and seats that are mostly sold, 2 years would be good, no min. weight. A is so close to 40lbs now and with his height the only seat he could still be rearfacing in is rnsl and he wouldn't make it to four by height. He'd probably still fit in the CA if I chose to ignore the 40" height max and dressed him very lightly. I'm not a fan of the radian and a lot of parents aren't going to spend $300 just because the *law* says they have to be rearfacing until age four. If ever questioned about age, most parents would simply lie. It's not like we carry around birth certificates to prove our children's age.

I wish the tf would rf to 40lbs.

 

[April]

2 and 25 like the Frontier. I had a 40lb 34 month old so it wouldn't be fair to parents of kids like that to have to buy a Radian.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[mamakc]

Oh, ha ha I thought we were dreaming here. So my "dream" is 4 years old, but realistically with what's available NOW, 2 years and no weight minimum would be my vote. I think the majority of convertibles will get even the tallest and heaviest kids to 2 years old.

 

[all together ooky]

2 years old and 25lbs. The law has to be easily compliable for everyone. There are plenty of seats at all price ranges that will get children to 2 years old. If you say 4 years or 45lbs then that leaves only one seat currently on the market. And if a person can't afford it or it doesn't install correctly then that person is breaking the law.

But really, education is the key. The word is getting out, albeit slowly.

 

[nevaehsmommy]

It does rf to 35 pounds, but some kids are taller than their weight. I've heard of lighter kids outgrowing the scenera by height.

My DNi is all of 26 lbs and close to out growing the scenera in my moms car by height.

No law is perfect. There will always be loop holes or cracks. Also I dont think that just because a new law comes on the books that parents are going to be anymore willing to follow it then they are now. Look at how many 12 month and under ride FFing.

 

[luckyclov]

Personally, I'd just like to see current laws enforced a little better...like, uhhhhh, just having your children restrained in a vehicle.

If we could conquer that - yeah, right - then I'd like to see 2 / 25-30 (maybe no minimum here, weight wise...I'm undecided), I think. Anything above that and we potentially run the risk of uninformed people misusing their carseats in RF mode...which, actually, is a risk anyways because of the height factor. People are so uninformed about height limits. I can't tell you how many times a week, in stores, I see babies whose heads are over the shell of their buckets - but based on "visual estimation" are probably still within the weight spec.

 

[urchin_grey]

2, no weight limit. I know its uncommon, but there are tiny kids out there. If the weight limit were 30lbs, I wouldn't legally be able to FF my 5.5yo. Of course, seats still need to have their own bare minimum weight/height requirements in addition to the age law.

 

[rodentranger]

2, no weight limit. I know its uncommon, but there are tiny kids out there. If the weight limit were 30lbs, I wouldn't legally be able to FF my 5.5yo. Of course, seats still need to have their own bare minimum weight/height requirements in addition to the age law.

Yes this.
I voted 2 and 30, but I can see how tiny kids could make that difficult.
My DNe is just shy of 3 and technically only barely legal to ff. He weighs about 23-24 lbs. SIL needed to buy another car seat when her younger son outgrew the SR22 (by height), and asked my recommendation. IMO, it was a little silly to buy a convertible for a 3 yo when he is never going to max out the weight limit on it. I felt that it would be more cost effective to get a GN for him. He will probably still outgrow be height well before he hits 65 lbs. She was concerned that she can't install it in her center middle row seat with the belt, but I pointed out that by the time he hits 48 lbs, he'll be ready for a booster anyway.:twocents:

 

[cat mommy]

I'd rather have "two years" than "two years and 25 pounds" because many parents will interpret that to mean they can FF a 14 month old who weighs 26 pounds.

 

[Kyras_Mama]

I think 2 years with a clause written in that health insurance companies must cover special seats for children who are under two but over 35 lbs with a doctor's prescription. Not that there aren't decent, affordable options out there for those kids, but because it would be one less excuse not to do it.

 

[safeinthecar]

Why can't we have a matrix?
0-1 must be rfing
1-2 and under 30# must be rfing
1-2 and over 30# may be ffing
2+ may be ffing in a seat rated for their weight
All seats must state clearly on the weight labels affixed to the seat that rfing is the safest position for children to ride.

This takes undue financial burden off of parents of 30#+ children by not requiring a new seat purchase since we are going to have tons of 30# seats on the market for years to come. It also keeps really young heavy kids rfing. Teeny two year olds will be protected by proper use laws and the lack of seats rated for under 20#.

 

[nevaehsmommy]

I think 2 years with a clause written in that health insurance companies must cover special seats for children who are under two but over 35 lbs with a doctor's prescription. Not that there aren't decent, affordable options out there for those kids, but because it would be one less excuse not to do it.

But then what of the chunky monkeys who have no health insurance

 

[carseatcoach]

As much as I care about child passenger safety, I think there are far more pressing issues for healthcare reform.

 

[sunnymw]

Why can't we have a matrix?
0-1 must be rfing
1-2 and under 30# must be rfing
1-2 and over 30# may be ffing
2+ may be ffing in a seat rated for their weight
All seats must state clearly on the weight labels affixed to the seat that rfing is the safest position for children to ride.

This takes undue financial burden off of parents of 30#+ children by not requiring a new seat purchase since we are going to have tons of 30# seats on the market for years to come. It also keeps really young heavy kids rfing. Teeny two year olds will be protected by proper use laws and the lack of seats rated for under 20#.

ITA but just change the 30 to 35.