Aircooled Dave

The part of this I find ridiculous is how are you possibly supposed to fit a child in that weight range in a rear-facing position? Even in a large SUV I doubt you could make it fit. The second part of this is how to get a child to sit rear facing at that age. Perhaps if it was the norm they would be OK with it, but most kids want to sit like Mommy & Daddy when they are that age. It would also be much more difficult to get them in/out since you woudl have to lift them over the seat. This is already difficult enough with an infant, let alone a 30lb toddler.

I agree rear facing as long as it is practical, but there needs to be a dose of reality here as well. This is one of those cases where the study did not take practical limits into consideration and just studied an 'ideal'. My kids were rear facing as long as it is practical regardless of age. Now that my 2nd is approaching 1yr old, I can already see the signs that the rear facing is reaching a practical limit. Even if the seat was radically re-designed, I don't see how it would be practical to keep her rear facing until 2.

brucec59

You can't trust them. It's not really about safety. It's about politicians putting a feather in their cap so they can say to their simpleminded base that "I help save children."

JPS

I've seen that, but from what I understand it is for securing the cab top cover in place. I don't think it is meant as a tether mount. That said, I have used it as well. The Canadian cab's have a mounting point in the rear middle of the seat back, but the US cabs do not.

I don't agree with that, respectfully. It is about safety, but it isn't always about practicality for every vehicle. If you have the space, rear facing IS safer. Why do you think flight attendants face that direction? You are much more likely to experience very rapid deceleration while driving forward than from an impact from the rear. That said, yes, you do have to temper with reality. Nothing works rear facing in the back of a 993 and allows a front passenger.