grrr i need to know

[tweedledum]

okay - on another board im on there are women who state that their child WILL BE RFING UNTIL THEY ARE 35lbs. okay, fine. but if they have a 4 year old (at 33lbs lets say) whose legs are scrunched up on them, is there a point where it is safer to turn him around? or is 4 years old still too young to have enough control to where it would be better to break all the bones in his legs than be FFing and it be worse?

am i making any sense?

[Outnumbered]

Ok, being rearfacing will NOT break bones in legs. If by chance a bone is brok.en in a rearfacing accident, it means the accident is severe enough the neck would have been brok.en forward facing, a far more serious injury.

And yes...if your four year old still fits in a rearfacing convertible, absolutely use it rearfacing. It is that much safer.

My kids outgrew the rearfacing limit on their convertibles before three, otherwise they'd all be rearfacing, even the 4.5 year old.

Graco is premiering the MyRide in the summer, with a rearfacing weight limit of 40 lbs.

The short answer is, it is still significantly safer for a four year old to rearface, if he can. It only becomes unsafe when the weight limit is exceeded or the head exceeds the shell.

[Outnumbered]

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/RFAlbum.aspx

This is an older photo album, but it shows kids 3, 4, and older who are safely rearfacing in American seats.

[tweedledum]

thank you very much the debate was more or less whether or not a child could be more severely injured bc he was rear-facing and "too big" to be RFing than if he was FFing. thanks again!

[Outnumbered]

As long as the child fits in the seat by height and weight, rearfacing will always be substantially safer than forward facing, even for older kids.