Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

So this debate has me going crazy....

Posted by   + Show Post

Rear face or forward face...what are you doing and why?

CafeMom Tickers
by on Feb. 13, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Replies (41-50):
Randi02
by Platinum Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Really? I'm not in the US, so I don't know. We had anatomy and physics, as well as biology and chemistry. I also took Earth Science, but that one was optional lol

Quoting emkirkley:

problem with your statement is that people don't take physiology or physics classes, they take biology which really doesn't get into this type of stuff.

Quoting Randi02:

Thank you! This is just what I was coming back to say :)

I don't understand how anyone who took basic anatomy and physics classes in high school can't grasp this. It's simple stuff!

Quoting emkirkley:

it's not about just the muscles.  the bones of the cervical spine do not solidify until age 6 and since the head of a preschooler is such a large proportion of the body, that combined with the openness of the spinal bones and the stretchiness of the ligaments and muscles--which stretch much further than the spinal cord--this is why it is NOT excessive.

I'll see if I can find some graphics to explain more.

Quoting Salem2012:

*sigh* ok....i understand rear facing to 2 because of the internal decapitation thing....but 4 will always seem excessive even 3 does because i am sure a 4 year old has good enough neck muscles by then.





IncognitoOne
by Bronze Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:07 PM
1 mom liked this
Rear facing as long as possible
Salem2012
by Anais on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Ok i think im convinced that crash video just traumatized me.


Quoting emkirkley:

All the safety experts say it's safest for a child to rear face as their spine is not strong enough to protect the spinal cord if they are forward facing. It's not strong enough because the vertebrae are in pieces joined by cartilage. The vertebral arch has not fused into a complete circle of bone, which will enclose and protect the spinal cord.


In the first picture there is a cervical vertebrae for a one-year old (left), and beside it a cervical vertebrae for a 6 year old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669158.jpg

In the 2nd picture, thoracic vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669157.jpg

In the 3rd picture, lumbar vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669156.jpg


The vertebrae do not begin to fuse until age 3-6 years old. This is why rear-facing is the safest as it gives more support and protection to the incomplete vertebrae and therefore the spinal cord. With vertebrae in pieces, a forward facing child has a greater chance of damage to the spinal cord when their head and neck whip forward and back in a crash.

To see what I mean by crash forces a child experiences in a crash, go to http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx
Scroll down the page to read the section titled "Why should my child rear-face past 1 year and 20 lbs?" for an explanation of crash forces and look at the crash test videos of forward-facing and rear-facing seats, the videos are at the bottom of the page.

We have car seats that allow children to rear-face up until 30-35 lbs, each seat varies. For many children this is well into their 2nd year if not older, and closer to the age when their vertebrae are fused. We just need to use the seats rear-facing to give children more protection in a crash.



CafeMom Tickers
emkirkley
by Silver Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:10 PM

In MOST US schools (at least all the states I have experience with) require biology, chemistry and at least one other science...the state I'm in requires physical science, biology 1 and chemistry 1 for those continuing on to college and suggest physics or chemistry 2, those not going on to college often do physical science, biology 1 and environmental science.

Quoting Randi02:

Really? I'm not in the US, so I don't know. We had anatomy and physics, as well as biology and chemistry. I also took Earth Science, but that one was optional lol

Quoting emkirkley:

problem with your statement is that people don't take physiology or physics classes, they take biology which really doesn't get into this type of stuff.

Quoting Randi02:

Thank you! This is just what I was coming back to say :)

I don't understand how anyone who took basic anatomy and physics classes in high school can't grasp this. It's simple stuff!

Quoting emkirkley:

it's not about just the muscles.  the bones of the cervical spine do not solidify until age 6 and since the head of a preschooler is such a large proportion of the body, that combined with the openness of the spinal bones and the stretchiness of the ligaments and muscles--which stretch much further than the spinal cord--this is why it is NOT excessive.

I'll see if I can find some graphics to explain more.

Quoting Salem2012:

*sigh* ok....i understand rear facing to 2 because of the internal decapitation thing....but 4 will always seem excessive even 3 does because i am sure a 4 year old has good enough neck muscles by then.






emkirkley
by Silver Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM

that article was a few years old before most manufacturers went to 40lbs rear facing and taller shells, but it gives good graphical information as to WHY rear facing is safer for preschoolers.

glad you learned something.

Quoting Salem2012:

Ok i think im convinced that crash video just traumatized me.


Quoting emkirkley:

All the safety experts say it's safest for a child to rear face as their spine is not strong enough to protect the spinal cord if they are forward facing. It's not strong enough because the vertebrae are in pieces joined by cartilage. The vertebral arch has not fused into a complete circle of bone, which will enclose and protect the spinal cord.


In the first picture there is a cervical vertebrae for a one-year old (left), and beside it a cervical vertebrae for a 6 year old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669158.jpg

In the 2nd picture, thoracic vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669157.jpg

In the 3rd picture, lumbar vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6 yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669156.jpg


The vertebrae do not begin to fuse until age 3-6 years old. This is why rear-facing is the safest as it gives more support and protection to the incomplete vertebrae and therefore the spinal cord. With vertebrae in pieces, a forward facing child has a greater chance of damage to the spinal cord when their head and neck whip forward and back in a crash.

To see what I mean by crash forces a child experiences in a crash, go to http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx
Scroll down the page to read the section titled "Why should my child rear-face past 1 year and 20 lbs?" for an explanation of crash forces and look at the crash test videos of forward-facing and rear-facing seats, the videos are at the bottom of the page.

We have car seats that allow children to rear-face up until 30-35 lbs, each seat varies. For many children this is well into their 2nd year if not older, and closer to the age when their vertebrae are fused. We just need to use the seats rear-facing to give children more protection in a crash.




amerslynn
by Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 4:24 PM
1 mom liked this
Glad to see you now can understand why it is safer. It is very scary when you see the crash test videos. That alone was enough to convince me.

My almost 4 year old is super tiny, only 29 pounds. She is still rearfacing and will be until she outgrows the seat she is in.


Quoting Salem2012:

Ok i think im convinced that crash video just traumatized me.



Quoting emkirkley:

All the safety experts say it's safest for a child to rear face as their spine
is not strong enough to protect the spinal cord if they are forward
facing. It's not strong enough because the vertebrae are in pieces
joined by cartilage. The vertebral arch has not fused into a complete
circle of bone, which will enclose and protect the spinal cord.


In the first picture there is a cervical vertebrae for a one-year old
(left), and beside it a cervical vertebrae for a 6 year old (right).
Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669158.jpg



In the 2nd picture, thoracic vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6
yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669157.jpg



In the 3rd picture, lumbar vertebrae for a 1 yr old (left) and for a 6
yr old (right). Note that the 1-yr old's vertebrae is still in pieces.



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL133.../293669156.jpg





The vertebrae do not begin to fuse until age 3-6 years old. This is why
rear-facing is the safest as it gives more support and protection to the
incomplete vertebrae and therefore the spinal cord. With vertebrae in
pieces, a forward facing child has a greater chance of damage to the
spinal cord when their head and neck whip forward and back in a crash.



To see what I mean by crash forces a child experiences in a crash, go to http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx

Scroll down the page to read the section titled "Why should my child
rear-face past 1 year and 20 lbs?" for an explanation of crash forces
and look at the crash test videos of forward-facing and rear-facing
seats, the videos are at the bottom of the page.



We have car seats that allow children to rear-face up until 30-35 lbs,
each seat varies. For many children this is well into their 2nd year if
not older, and closer to the age when their vertebrae are fused. We just
need to use the seats rear-facing to give children more protection in a
crash.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
amiesmomma
by on Feb. 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/03/21/car.seat.guidelines.parenting/index.html

The guidelines list 2 as a MINIMUM age. They say to rf as long as your child falls within the manufacturer limits. Her children fall within the limits. Why ff early?


Quoting Salem2012:

I consider this excessive because if the law is 1 and the reccomendation is 2....why must they ve rear facing til 4?! I do not plan to rear face til 2 ...at most 18 months and i am not saying it is bad to rf all im saying is that 4 seems like way too old to be rf when a 4 year old can already be in a booster.



Quoting amiesmomma:



Why would you consider this excessive?  Why turn the car seat around if research proves that rear facing is safer?  Turning the car seat around is not a developmental milestone.





 


Quoting Salem2012:


See to me this is just excessive.




Quoting Randi02:

My older kids were almost 4 when I turned them. My 2.5 year old and 2 week old are both still rear facing.

Why? It's what's safest, and I would not be able to live with myself if something happened and I had not dine my best to protect them. It takes no extra effort, and it is so much safer.












Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
micheledo
by on Feb. 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM
1 mom liked this
I appreciate the education . Our first two, we turned at one. I triee to turn our daughter back around at 18 months or so, but she got so carsick. She wouldn't cry or show any signs, but would cough. Then we got to our destination and would find her covered in vomit. :( After it continued to happe nwith every trip, we turned her ff again. Our 4th was rf until two. I had complications with my pregnancy and was unable to get in the back of the van to buckle him up. So he went ff. We are hoping to get a bigger van very soon and keep this little guy rf longer!


Quoting emkirkley:

problem with your statement is that people don't take physiology or physics classes, they take biology which really doesn't get into this type of stuff. 

That's why it is the job of those of us more educated on these facts to put the facts out there.  I try not to be demeaning, but straightforward.  Do I think it's something everyone should do more research on, certainly; are they all going to do it, no, but those reading might think twice about it after they read discussions that are informative and not just blasting people about making uninformed choices.

Quoting Randi02:

Thank you! This is just what I was coming back to say :)

I don't understand how anyone who took basic anatomy and physics classes in high school can't grasp this. It's simple stuff!

Quoting emkirkley:

it's not about just the muscles.  the bones of the cervical spine do not solidify until age 6 and since the head of a preschooler is such a large proportion of the body, that combined with the openness of the spinal bones and the stretchiness of the ligaments and muscles--which stretch much further than the spinal cord--this is why it is NOT excessive.

I'll see if I can find some graphics to explain more.

Quoting Salem2012:

*sigh* ok....i understand rear facing to 2 because of the internal decapitation thing....but 4 will always seem excessive even 3 does because i am sure a 4 year old has good enough neck muscles by then.





Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
wood1980
by on Feb. 13, 2013 at 6:04 PM
1 mom liked this

 clearly you have not done you research. Have you watched crash test vidoes of what happens to young forward facing children in a head on collision? If you choose to FF at 1 year that is fine but do your research before questioning people who clearly have done theirs. yes the law says at 4 a child can be in a booster, but is it safer? Heck no!!! children are recomended to be in a 5pt harness as long as possible, that is why there now are convertible carseats that go up to 70+lbs. If you did any research you would know that rear facing is something many people now choose to do for children that are 5+ years old.

My 2 1/2 year old is 41lbs and is still rearfacing, he will be until he reaches 45lbs which it the limit for RFing in his seat. he will then be FF in a 5pt harness until he is 70lbs. Why do I do this? because it is proven to be safer. If it gives my child a better chance of surviving a collision then I will do it.

Quoting Salem2012:

I consider this excessive because if the law is 1 and the reccomendation is 2....why must they ve rear facing til 4?! I do not plan to rear face til 2 ...at most 18 months and i am not saying it is bad to rf all im saying is that 4 seems like way too old to be rf when a 4 year old can already be in a booster.

 

Quoting amiesmomma:

 

Why would you consider this excessive?  Why turn the car seat around if research proves that rear facing is safer?  Turning the car seat around is not a developmental milestone.

 


 

Quoting Salem2012:

See to me this is just excessive.

 

Quoting Randi02:

My older kids were almost 4 when I turned them. My 2.5 year old and 2 week old are both still rear facing.

Why? It's what's safest, and I would not be able to live with myself if something happened and I had not dine my best to protect them. It takes no extra effort, and it is so much safer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mamabens
by Silver Member on Feb. 13, 2013 at 6:06 PM

IMO safety is not debateable. My son was rear faced until the weight limit of his seat, he was 2 1/2 when we turned him. This next baby will rf to the limits of his/her seat as well.

 BabyFruit Ticker


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)