WWYD wrt a holiday light show?

[NicoleP]

I think she said that while it's not AS safe "FF at a year and at the weight requirement" is allowed so I think she meant if they are over the minimums she would consider it- that's how I read it

Yes, I would do it for this mile long light show. But no I would NEVER turn my 8 week old son FF. My 1yr old and 2yr old are both still RF and will continue to be until 35lbs.

 

[Judi]

I had Bekah FFing for the lights last year. She was 3.

 

[snowbird25ca]

We went through a light show here last year and ds was able to see the lights in the soft mirror I had up at the time. I might put it up for the light show again this year since it let him see the lights. (The light show here can only be seen when you're going forward the way that it's set up, he enjoyed it well enough with the mirror last year though. :thumbsup: )

Maybe that's an easy compromise?

My ds is 2yrs old this year and I expect he'll enjoy the show. He's a strong willed child, so I haven't even entertained the idea of turning him ff'ing for the lights. I'd hate to have him getting in his car seat become a battle and who knows if 1 trip ff'ing would be enough to do that.

 

[Adventuredad]

I would have no problem whatsoever doing from a safety standpoint. But perhaps it won't increase visibility. Rear facing is of course much safer but I think it's good we don't forget common sense:twocents:

 

[skaterbabs]

Again, my point still stands. You're turning your child forward facing in a situation in which a crash is MORE likely rather than less. A ten mile-per-hour crash is potentially fatal.

 

[Maedze]

Again, my point still stands. You're turning your child forward facing in a situation in which a crash is MORE likely rather than less. A ten mile-per-hour crash is potentially fatal.

I all ready said I wasn't turning him forward facing.

 

[skaterbabs]

I all ready said I wasn't turning him forward facing.

I wasn't directing my comment to you.

 

[southpawboston]

I would have no problem whatsoever doing from a safety standpoint. But perhaps it won't increase visibility. Rear facing is of course much safer but I think it's good we don't forget common sense:twocents:

once again, i agree completely. :thumbsup:

remember that risk of a particular situation is a factor of time spent in that situation. if you are going for a one-mile ride at crawling speeds, the chances of your child being put in increased danger by FFing (at a legal age and weight) or so slim as to be barely consequential when viewed in the grander scheme. if it were a 2000 mile x-country trip at high speed, that risk would then become much greater.

of course, the best way to see holiday lights is not by car, anyway, but by horse-drawn sleigh . by foot or by bike are also good :thumbsup: and the FF dilemma becomes moot.

 

[christineka]

I've thought about this, but realized my dd couldn't see out the windows when she was ffing. She sees a lot more rfing, so I'd leave her there. I think that it would be best for the rfing kid to have their seat installed either in the back bench or next to a window. If you put them in the very middle they won't see much forward or rear-facing. I'd put my booster kiddo there because she can see plenty with her glasses on.

 

[Maedze]

of course, the best way to see holiday lights is not by car, anyway, but by horse-drawn sleigh . by foot or by bike are also good :thumbsup: and the FF dilemma becomes moot.

Does the car seat go forward facing or rear facing on the horse

 

[southpawboston]

Does the car seat go forward facing or rear facing on the horse

it depends if you want to have the DVD player strapped to the reigns or not. RF may impede visibility, ya know...

 

[Maedze]

A DVD player is an after-market product. I would never put a DVD player on a horse :thumbsdown:

 

[tl01]

I would have no problem whatsoever doing from a safety standpoint. But perhaps it won't increase visibility. Rear facing is of course much safer but I think it's good we don't forget common sense:twocents:

I agree! I'm all for ERF but I would say that a properly installed FFing car seat (that is being used properly as well) would not increase the risk that much. I recognize that everyone is distracted when they are viewing lights etc but it would be pretty hard to get going to fast enough that they would hit someone at a deadly speed. I'm sure it's possible.... just highly unlikely.

I'm just thinking out loud now.. but assuming that the driver on the minivan is concentrating on the drive and that side impact crash chances are going to be pretty minimal on the drive since the road is a "closed road", then the greatest chance for impact would be from the rear. Wouldn't it be a fairly moot point to be RFing when being rear ended?

 

[skipspin]

Yes, if needed.

If my DS couldn't see a light show RFing I'd turn him FFing for just the show. Well, probably. If it was too much trouble to switch his seat or I thought he wouldn't like RFing after that I wouldn't. I'd just bring him lots of snacks. LOL. In our vehicle he can see just was well RFing, so it wouldn't really apply.

BTW, he's well over 25#s and 20 months. He's never been FFing other than once on our private property where there were no other vehicles. We put him harnessed in DD's RYS to drive to the back of our property, 5 acres, and see the cows. Otherwise we would have had to move the RFing RN twice. Yuck!

 

[Ahzryn]

A DVD player is an after-market product. I would never put a DVD player on a horse :thumbsdown:

ROFL!!!! :thumbsup:

 

[Kat_Momof3]

I think it depends on the kid and your situation.
Basically... would I do it at Norfolk Botanical Gardens??? HELL no. First, you can see them from behind, so that's one reason... Second, there are some crazy people that drive through that one and some years I've literally thought it a miracle we didn't get hit.

Now, there are some other light shows where I would here... but it would still depend on the time of day going.

You know the area and the traffic, along with how patient your child is about long rides in the dark (aka... if not seeing much of the lights), and that's what has to be factored.

if the risks of being hit are none (save an almost impossible to happen freak occurance), I'd be fine with it.

But we did drive Ruthie's first light show with her RF at about that age (she was under 2... she turned 2 that March)... and not only did she NOT care... she fell asleep before we even got in to the lights... it was a LONG LONG line. Fortunately, I'd brought popcorn and christmas cookies, along with thermoses of hot cocoa for sippy cups (hey, Damian was fine to drink out of one to keep my car from getting hot cocoa on it) and mugs (for the grownups)

Had she woken up, though, because I didn't feel it was safe to turn her for it, I did have some toys along... that light up, in fact... that the brother sitting next to her in the third row could make sure were on for her to play with... because I did feel that it was safe enough to break our "no hard toys that could be projectiles" rule.

Ironically, she fell asleep the next year when she was too big to rf, too.

Last year was the first year she stayed awake!


SO maybe the answer is to go at a time where he will doze off?

 

[Adventuredad]

Again, my point still stands. You're turning your child forward facing in a situation in which a crash is MORE likely rather than less. A ten mile-per-hour crash is potentially fatal.

I technically agree and think this brings up some interesting thoughts. It would be safer to have a child rear facing and chance of accident is probably higher since everyone is staring out the window instead of forward. I constantly talk (more like nagging) about importance of rear facing but forward facing isn't THAT dangerous. Especially at the low speeds OP was talking about. If forward facing is that unsafe, why do we let a single child sit forward facing before age 4? Why is the law then 12/20 instead of 4 years or something similar?

Regardless of what we do we can't protect our kids 100% so we try to estimate risks and combine some common sense with what we know is safe. I find the increased risks in this case being too small too measure. Reminds me of flying with car seats. Zero kids die of turbulence each year and close to zero are injured. Car seats are safer on a plane, but only by 0.00000000000001% (or something similar) which I think is too small of a number to worry about in the big picture.

My son has been riding **gasp** forward facing a few times in Germany at age 2-3 years. When our car wasn't at the tennis club and he had to ride a few miles in another car. Normal stuff for the Germans but an emergency exception for me. I wasn't worried since we weren't going fast and forward facing seats aren't that bad. Plus chance of accident in a small town really isn't large. I thought this was an acceptable "risk" to take.

I'm not picking on you Skaterbabs even though it sounds like it. I just thought this was some interesting side points

of course, the best way to see holiday lights is not by car, anyway, but by horse-drawn sleigh . by foot or by bike are also good and the FF dilemma becomes moot.

Great point. Rear facing is much safe than forward facing but walking is much safer than rear facing. I think it's awesome we're all so safety oriented: But a little common sense here and there is good. We can't protect our kids from everything in the world.:twocents:

 

[ketchupqueen]

Why is the law then 12/20 instead of 4 years or something similar?

Because it's usually like pulling teeth to get lawmakers to change laws in this area, and most laws have not caught up to recommendations even with boostering older/larger kids, much less actually determining HOW kids must be restrained (just that kids under a certain age or in some cases height must be in SOME KIND of restraint, and 1 and 20 for infants OR proper use.)

 

[Adventuredad]

I agree about lawmakers, I was just saying that if ff is so dangerous we're "worried" about letting a child ride ff for 1 mile at 10 mph, perhaps there should be some changes in habits/laws etc. I know the practical problems with this but was just kind of thinking out loud

 

[skaterbabs]

97% of ALL crashes are at less than 35 mph. The vast majority of that 97% is at the same "low speeds" you see duiring these light shows.

We talk a lot about "if you KNEW you were going to be in a crash, what would you choose?" and this is one of those situations. The likelihood of a crash is pretty high, you need to protect your kids.

As far as why the law is 12/20 - that has NOTHING to do with safety and everything to do with what seats were available in 1996. :thumbsdown: