Is it Safe, Legal, or OK for My Elementary-School-Aged Child to Sit in the Front Seat? (No, Yes, and Rarely, and Here’s Why)

No matter how much fun it might be to let your elementary-aged child sit in the front seat, s/he'll be safer in the back.
No matter how much fun it might be to let your elementary-aged child sit in the front seat, s/he’ll be safer in the back.

Parents frequently email me with questions related to best practices in car seat safety. Sometimes they have to do with which car seats allow kids to rear-face the longest or which convertible seats will work 3 across in most vehicles or which infant seats are the most 3-across friendly. However, they often have to do with whether kids of a certain age can safely sit in particular kinds of seats. I recently wrote a guide to the best car seats for preschoolers and the best car seats for kindergartners, which a number of readers found helpful. As a result, today, we’ll take a look at the safety, legality, and sensibility of allowing elementary-aged children to sit in the front seat. If you’re in a hurry, here’s what you need to know: it’s not safe for young children to sit in the front seat, but it’s legal in most states in the US. Is it ever OK? I’d argue yes in the most extreme circumstances, but not in 99% of cases we’re likely to encounter on a daily basis.

Why isn’t it safe to let elementary-aged children (kindergarteners, 1st graders, 2nd graders, 3rd graders, 4th graders, and 5th graders) sit in the front seat?

It isn’t safe to let elementary-aged kids seat in the front seat of vehicles because the front of a car, SUV, pickup truck, or minivan is the most dangerous part of a vehicle. A full 50% of auto fatalities involve multiple-vehicle collisions. Most fatal multiple-vehicle crashes involve frontal impacts. In frontal impacts, the odds of survival are lowest in the front row and highest in the rear-most row (the 2nd row in a 2-row vehicle, the 3rd row in a 3-row vehicle). Placing your child in the front passenger seat places him or her in one of the two most risky seats in a vehicle, statistically speaking (the other being the driver’s seat). On top of this, elementary-aged kids don’t have fully formed bone structures. Teenagers don’t either, but they’re a lot closer to being fully formed than younger children.

To put it another way, teenagers are much safer sitting in the front seat (although they’d still be safer in the back seats) than children because teenagers are larger, heavier, more developed, and perhaps most importantly, more likely to properly fit adult seat belts while being large enough to not be at serious risk of injury from frontal airbags. The seat belt fit issue is key; a child who doesn’t fit an adult seat belt isn’t going to be restrained properly by such a seat belt in a crash, and stands a much higher risk of either being hurt by the seat belt or slipping out of the seat belt and flying unrestrained into the dashboard (or through the windshield, through the door window, into the roof, etc). None of these are good scenarios, and they’re all far more likely if a child is seated in a seat belt before s/he’s capable of passing the five-step test for seat belt readiness.

It’s not worth rushing. Kids belong in the back seat. The NHTSA explicitly recommends keeping children in the back seat until at least 13. The younger children are, the more of a risk they face by sitting in the front compared to when sitting in the back. And as I’ve noted, that risk is always greater in the front–even for adults.

OK…so it’s not safe. But is it legal to let an elementary-aged child sit in the front passenger seat?

Even though it’s nowhere near best practices, a review of current laws indicates children may ride in frontal seats in virtually all states. California wisely notes that rear-facing children can’t ride in the front row if the passenger air bag can’t be disabled. Delaware takes things a step farther and applies that rule to all children either under 12 (hello best practices!) or under 65 inches in height. Louisiana goes almost as far by noting that children either under 6 or under 60 pounds must follow that rule (avoiding the front seat if the passenger air bag can’t be disabled) unless a rear seat is unavailable. And Wyoming extends the law to all children under 9 unless a rear row is unavailable, and notes that in such cases, children must still be secured in a child safety restraint while seated in the front seat.

However, that’s a grand total of 4 states out of 50. Puerto Rico has no front seat provisions, and nor do 46 other states. Canada isn’t any better; British Columbia requires kids stay away from frontal airbags until they’re at least 9kg and 1 year old, while no other province has any laws whatsoever related to front row avoidance. The other 12 territories and provinces are silent.

To put it mildly, if you want to do this, the law won’t stop you. But it’s not best practice.

Is it ever OK to have an elementary-aged child in the front seat?

Despite all the reasons not to place kids in the front seat, there are situations where it’s a necessary evil. If you’ve got a vehicle without seat belts in the back seats, then yes, it would be safer for a child to sit in the front row. However, it would be safest for the child not to ride in such a vehicle at all, particularly if such a vehicle featured a frontal airbag that couldn’t be disabled. In vehicles where the frontal airbags can be disabled, it’s still safer to seat a child in the back row, presuming seat belts are available there, but a child in an appropriate child restraint  sitting in a frontal vehicle seat without frontal airbags would be acceptably safe. In fact, this is actually a common setup in Sweden with rear-facing seats, and they enjoy the lowest child fatality rates in the world. However, Swedes also rear-face past 4 and follow a range of best practices in driving patterns, vehicle safety, and road design.

On top of disabling the frontal airbag and making sure the child were appropriately restrained (i.e., a rear-facing seat if possible, followed by a forward-facing harnessed seat or booster seat), you’d also want to push the vehicle seat as far backwards as possible to provide as much space as possible between the child and the dashboard. And of course, do remember that rear-facing seats are never to be used in vehicles where frontal airbags can’t be disabled; the airbags drive the rear-facing seats (and the children in them) into the vehicle seats at high speeds, killing the children inside them.

This is a lot of information. Is there a quick rule of thumb on front-row-vs-back-row safety I can follow?

Sure! A good rule of thumb is that if you can’t disable the frontal airbag, a child under 13 has no business being in the front row if a rear seat with a 3-point seat belt is available. And if you can’t disable that frontal airbag, a rear-facing child should never ride in the front row.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Send me an email at carcrashdetective [at] gmail [dot] com.

The Best Car Seats under $200 in 2020: Which Infant Seats, Convertibles, Combinations, and Boosters Follow Best Practices?

A child today has more safe car seats available than at any time since the invention of the...well, car.
A child today has more safe car seats available than at any time since the invention of the…well, car.

There has never been a better time to buy a car seat in the United States than today in 2020. It’s not so much because the technology has gotten better, even though there have been slight improvements here and there; it’s because Americans are more aware than we’ve ever been about best practices in car seat safety. More parents than ever are rear-facing until 3, 4, or 5, even though the number is still far smaller than it would ideally be, and is in countries like Sweden and Norway. More parents than ever are keeping children harnessed (forward-facing) until their children are able to safely sit in booster seats, instead of rushing to booster far too soon (remember, preschoolers don’t belong in booster seats. Neither do most kindergartners, for that matter). Farther along, more parents than ever are keeping their children boostered until they pass the 5-step test, even if that means boostering until 10 or 11 (or later!). And finally, more parents than ever are keeping their children in the back seat until 13 instead of placing them in the front seats during the elementary school years. To put it simply, we’re getting the word out there, and parents are listening.

However, parents can’t follow best practices without the right car seats, and parents can’t use the right car seats if they can’t afford them.

Given the fact that the poverty rate in the US is somewhere around 13-14% each year and the 2017 federal poverty rates are $24,300 for a family of 4 (e.g., 2 adults and 2 children), $20,420 for a family of 3, or $28,750 for a family of 5, it’s no surprise that many parents aren’t following best practices simply because they don’t believe they can afford to. Fortunately, as parents become increasingly aware of best practices, car seat manufacturers and retailers respond by making seats that allow for best practices more affordable. Today we’ll look at my favorite seats for following best practices for car seat use from birth through infancy, the toddler and preschool years, the elementary years, and the middle school years. Each seat slots in under $200 while allowing parents to keep their children restrained as safely as possible for their unique stages of physical, cognitive, and emotional development.

The Best Car Seat for Infants and Babies Under $200 in 2020


keyfit30-1When leaving the hospital with your baby, you’re going to need a car seat. Yes, you can technically leave without one, such as if you plan on walking or taking the bus, but it’s going to be most comfortable and practical (and the only legal option if you plan on using a car, minivan, SUV, or pickup truck) to use a car seat. You can use a convertible car seat, and there are a number of parents who start their kids directly in convertibles (e.g., the Graco Extend2Fit) to avoid the hassle of switching seats within the next year when the infant seat is outgrown. However, most parents find it simplest and most convenient to simply use an infant car seat; these can plug in directly into bases in vehicles and detach for use on the go, allowing you to transfer sleeping babies from the car to the store (or home, if you’re lucky). Of these seats, the Chicco KeyFit 30 (review here, buy here) is my favorite sub-$200 option. It’s simple, safe, well-designed, and easy to use.

The Best Rear-Facing Car Seat Under $200 in 2020

The Extend2Fit reviewed by the Car Crash Detective
To rear-face to 50 pounds for cheap, the Extend2Fit is your best choice.

Although it’s more convenient to start with an infant seat, a number of parents will go straight to the convertible car seat (one that rear- and forward-faces) to avoid needing to switch seats in a year when their baby outgrows the infant seat. Whether you choose the convertible seat from the start or after the infant seat stage, it’s a seat you’re going to need if you plan on extended rear facing (which is what you want to do). When rear-facing, the number one rule is the longer the better. Rear-facing is safer than forward-facing at every stage of life (even adulthood), but it makes the biggest difference during the early years. Most Americans forward-face by 1.5; in Sweden and Norway, most parents don’t until 4 or later. That’s the goal here, and the cheapest seat to make it possible is the Graco Extend2Fit (review here, buy here). With a 50 pound weight limit and 49″ height limit, you’re virtually guaranteed to get nearly all children to at least 5, which means you can rear-face through the preschool years into kindergarten, keeping your children as safe as possible during the years where single biggest killer of children is car traffic.

The Best Forward-Facing, Combination, and Booster Car Seat Under $200 in 2020

Once done rear-facing, you’ll want to forward face until your child is capable of using a booster seat as safely as s/he’d use a forward-facing seat. For some kids, that’s as early as 4 or 5, but for many, it’s closer to 6 or 7. The Britax Pioneer  (review here, buy here) is the best seat under $200 that takes the work out of making either decision. It’s a combination seat, which means it can be used either harnessed as a forward-facing seat or sans harness and with seat belt as a high-back booster.

The research states that high-back boosters are as safe as harnessed seats once children are safe enough to use them, but since this seat will allow you to forward-face while harnessed until 70 pounds and 56″ in height, if you don’t want to worry about whether or not your child can maturely sit, even while sleeping, in position while using a seat belt, you can simply keep the seat in harnessed mode until your child is 7 or 8 and you’re completely sure. Once you switch to booster mode, you won’t be tempted to skip the five step test for seat belt readiness; with a 120 pound and 60″ height limit, the odds are strong that your child will still fit in the Pioneer when s/he’s 10-12 and ready to test out into a seat belt.

Are good car seats more affordable than ever? Yes!

In conclusion, I hope you’ll agree with me that things have never been better with regard to car seat safety than today in the United States. Whether in the diffusion of safety knowledge or in the availability and affordability of seats that actually comply with best practices, we’re slowly moving toward a safer society that recognizes and makes steps to ameliorate the very real dangers of auto traffic. As a quick note, remember that before summer 2014, there was only one seat in the United States that allowed rear-facing until 50 pounds, the Clek Foonf; now there are more than half a dozen, and the number only continues to grow.  Car seats are only part of the overall safety picture, of course; how we drive, what we drive, and how our national driving culture is structured together make up the lion’s share of the differences in driving death rates from one country to the next, but every step in the right direction brings us closer to the goal of a safer world.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can  shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Join us in the forums!

Americans Drive More than Anyone Else in the World, And Are Dying For It

How much do you drive? Is there any way you could reduce this amount?
Is there any way you could drive less than you currently do?

One of the most basic, yet most effective, means of reducing our odds of death by auto traffic is to reduce our exposure to said traffic. I’ve written about this before, in terms of how we can double our driving safety by cutting our annual mileage in half. However, the information bears repeating, given the fact that we drive more, on average, in the United States than in any other country on the planet.

I find it helps to have international frames of reference when discussing driver safety, as it often provides us with a greater perspective of how things we take for granted in the US might not necessarily be the safest or even most practical ways of doing things. Today’s article will explore US driving rates across ages and compare them to a number of countries with a focus on Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. We’ll then extrapolate what death rates in each country would look like if each nation adopted the other’s driving habits.

Just how much do Americans drive per year, on average?

According to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drive 13,476 miles per year on average. These figures vary significantly by age and gender, with men driving more than women at all stages of life.  The peak driving ages for both genders occur between 35 and 54 for men, with an average just beneath 19,000 miles, and and between 20 and 34 for women, with an average of just over 12,000 miles. On average, then, the typical American drives a shade under 37 miles a day.

Per the IIHS, 35,092 Americans died from auto traffic in 2015, making it the worst year since 2008, where more than 37,000 died. The per capita death rate was 10.9 auto deaths per 100,000 residents, while the death rate per 100 million miles driven was 1.12.

Let’s look at how this compares to the average Norwegian, Swede, and Englishman or woman.

How many miles do Norwegians drive on average?

Per Statistisk Sentralbyra, or Statistics Norway, Norwegians drove an average of 12,289 km in 2015, or 7,636 miles per year. This translates to an average of 21 miles a day, or about 57% of the average US daily mileage.

Per SSB, 117 Norwegians died from auto traffic in 2015, making it the best year since 1948. I’ve written before about how Norway compares very favorably to the United States in auto safety, whether in overall fatalities or in child safety, and this was underscored in 2015. The per capita death rate was 2.2 auto deaths per 100,000 residents, which was one of the lowest in the world.

The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1970 with 560 deaths. The report credits the dramatic drops in death rates since the 70s to a variety of causes, including safer cars, reduced speed limits, introductions of median barriers, and seat belt campaigns, as well as an overall Vision Zero strategy.

How many miles do Swedes drive on average?

Per Transport Analysis, Swedes drove an average of 12,216 km in 2015, or 7,591 miles per year. This translates to an average of just under 21 miles a day, or about 57% of the average US daily mileage.

Per Transport Analysis, 259 Swedes died from auto traffic in 2015. The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1965 and 1966 with 1,313 deaths, and 2015’s figure appears to be Sweden’s lowest in modern history. The report credits the dramatic drops in death rates since the 60s to “safer cars, lower speeds, and the introduction of median barriers” – all elements of Vision Zero.

As with Norway, I’ve written about how Sweden experiences very few deaths, proportionally speaking, to the US, both in terms of overall deaths or in child safety (this is where extended rear-facing was born). In 2015, the per capita death rate was 2.7 auto deaths per 100,000, also one of the lowest in the world.

How many miles do UK citizens drive on average?

Per the UK Government’s Road Use Statistics 2016, the British drove an average of 6,488 miles in what appears to be 2013. This translates to an average of just under 18 miles a day, or about 49% of the average US daily mileage.

Per National Statistics, 1,732 Britons died from auto traffic in 2015, which appears to be the second best year in modern history after 2013, when 1713 died. This figure also represented a 46% drop in 10 years compared to the 3,201 death toll in 2005. The 2016 IRTAD road safety report notes the peak fatality figures were reached in 1941 with 9,000 deaths. In 2015, the per capita death rate was 2.7 auto deaths per 100,000, again one of the lowest in the world.

Interestingly, Sweden and the UK shared the same per capita death rate, indicating that the difference in total road deaths between the two countries could be entirely explained in 2015 due to the difference in total population between the two countries. There were approximately 6 Brits for every Swede, so with an identical death rate, the death toll was 6x higher in the UK than in Sweden.

How do the average miles driven by Americans affect our annual road death toll?

We’ve established that Americans drive more miles per day (and by extension, per year) than Norwegians, Swedes, and Britons, on average. However, the next step in figuring out how our driving patterns–or more specifically, the extent of our driving–affect our annual road death toll. To put the numbers into focus, let’s compare each of the three countries to the US.

If Americans drove as few miles as Norwegians or Swedes (i.e., 21 miles a day, or 57% of 37 miles a day), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 20,002 deaths, representing 15,090 lives saved.

If Americans drove as few miles as the British (i.e., 18 miles a day, or 49% of 37 miles a day), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 17,195 deaths, representing 17,897 lives saved.

That’s huge.

How would the annual fatality rate in the US change if the per capita death rate were the same as those in Norway, Sweden, or the UK?

Now that we’ve compared how many fewer road deaths the US would suffer annually if we reduced our driving rates to those found in Norway, Sweden, and the UK, let’s compare how the annual fatality rate would change if we shared per capita rates with those countries. This figure is particularly interesting when combined with the changes based on mileage, as the  closer the road death toll from a modified per capita rate is to the road death toll from a modified mileage, the more our mileage (i.e., amount of driving) explains our per capita rate.

To put it simply, if adopting the per capita death rates of other countries wouldn’t give us significantly different annual death tolls than if we simply adopted other countries’ driving frequencies, this suggests the primary problem in the US with respect to road safety is simply how much we’re driving. On the other hand, if the modified road death toll from a modified per capita rate isn’t close to that of a modified road death toll from a modified driving rate, it suggests the US’ road safety issues are primarily due to other factors (e.g., the safety of the road network or the safety of our vehicles). The availability of other transportation options (e.g., buses and trains) also counts as a separate factor that could explain the difference in safety. Let’s see.

If the US shared Norway’s per capita death rate (2.2 instead of 10.9 deaths per 100,000 citizens), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 7,083 deaths, representing 28,009 lives saved.

If the US shared Sweden or the UK’s per capita death rate (2.7 instead of 10.9 deaths per 100,000 citizens), instead of 35,092 deaths in 2015, we’d have had approximately 8,693 deaths, representing 26,399 lives saved.
Once again, this is huge.

Which matters more? Reducing driving rates or the overall per capita death rate?

Comparing the projected fatalities from the two types of adjustments (by mileage and by per capita rates) shows much, much bigger drops in total deaths by changing per capita rates than by changing driving rates.
Adopting Norwegian per capita death rates would result in roughly 1/3rd of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.
Adopting Swedish per capita death rates would result in fewer than 1/2 of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.
Adopting British per capita death rates would result in just over 1/2 of the deaths we’d have if we simply adopted their driving rates.
As a result, it looks like the primary reasons for much greater safety results in the leading countries as compared to the US cannot simply be explained by the fact that they drive less (although that explanation is the leading factor in the UK-US comparison). There are a range of other factors at work, including an overall pattern of safer driving habits, safer vehicle options, a safer road network, and more public transportation alternatives.
However, does this meant that it’s not worth driving less? Absolutely not. The fact is that we could immediately chop off 43-51% of our annual road death toll simply by committing to drive at roughly half our current rates. This applies at the national, state, local, and personal level. The majority of the difference in death tolls cannot be explained primarily by driving rates, but driving rates remain one of the largest factors in affecting that difference.
Advocate for safer road systems, for public transportation. Advocate for safer vehicles and for safer driving practices. However, in the mean time, drive less, and encourage your loved ones to do the same. It’s quite possibly the single most effective driving technique you can master.
…
If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can buy my books here or do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Send me an email at carcrashdetective [at] gmail [dot] com.

Should Kindergartners Use Seatbelts, Boosters or Forward-Facing Seats (Or Should They Still Rear-Face)?

Your kindergartner doesn't need a car seat on this vehicle. But if s/he's in a car, then yes. Ideally rear-facing, but forward-facing is fine.
Your kindergärtner doesn’t need a car seat on this vehicle. But if s/he’s in a car, then yes. Ideally rear-facing, but forward-facing is fine.

One of the most frequent questions I get via email involves whether or not it’s okay to place kindergärtners in seat belts. In case you don’t have the time to read further, it isn’t. Another frequent question along the same lines is whether kindergartners can safely use booster seats. This answer is far less black-and-white, but typically, if you’re asking the question, the answer for your child should be “no” (I’ll go into why shortly). A final question are from parents who know that no kindergarten-aged child should use a seat belt and that many at that age aren’t yet capable of using booster seats safely; the question here at this stage typically involves whether forward-facing seats are the best choice for kindergartners or whether they should still be rear-facing. My answer here is the most controversial: it’s fine to forward-face, but it’s still better to rear-face if your child continues to fit his or her car seat by weight and height.

That was the short version. Let’s look at each of these questions in detail below. And as a reference, “kindergartner” in this article primarily refers to a typically-developing child between the ages of 5 and 6, but it also applies to 4-year-olds, who also attend kindergarten depending on cutoff dates in a number of states, provinces, boroughs, and territories across the US, Canada, and elsewhere in the world.

Is it safe, okay, or legal to put kindergärtners in seat belts? If not, why shouldn’t a kindergarten-aged child use a seat belt?

This isn’t my favorite question to answer because it’s one that makes the best (at least the child is restrained at all) of a bad situation (it’s an inappropriate restraint). On the other hand, it can serve as a conversation starter for parents and caregivers, and even if many who hear an answer they don’t like hearing tune it out, there are always some parents who make safer decisions after acquiring new information, so it’s always worth trying to spread and share best practices.

First of all, it’s not safe to put kindergärtners in seat belts.

Yes, it’s safer than having them bouncing around the back (or front) seat unbelted, but at the same time, it also exposes them to a number of unnecessary and potentially fatal risks. Why? Because seat belts are designed for adults and adolescents. The lap belt is designed to cross the lap while lying on the thighs while the shoulder belt is designed to cross from the waist past the shoulder blade. The shoulder belt isn’t the big worry here in a crash; it’s the lap belt. A kindergarten-sized child will have such a belt across her stomach, which means that in a crash, she runs a high risk of either a.) “submarining”, i.e., slipping completely out from beneath the seat belt due to the inertia she’ll carry in a crash or b.) suffering a number of internal organ injuries due to the belt crushing her stomach as she flies into it at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70…mph. Neither scenario is one we want our kids exposed to, and both scenarios can easily lead to fatalities or to children suffering lifelong debilitating injuries or paralyses. Seat belts are never a good idea for kindergarten-aged kids unless you simply no other options besides seat belts or traveling unrestrained…and in those situations, I’d recommend walking unless it’s literally a life and death situation.

So no, it’s not safe, and it’s not okay. That said, it is legal in many states.

Due to a combination of an insane car culture and representatives more interested in (insert lobbyist-drafted proposal here) than in protecting our population from the dangers of metal boxes hurled at each other all day long at high speeds, many states don’t explicitly require child car seats beyond infancy; a few require some form of child restraint for some years afterward, but you’re almost guaranteed to be able to travel anywhere in the US without risking being pulled over for having a kindergartner in a seat belt.

But now you know better, it’s time to do better. Which brings us to the next stage of kindergartner auto safety enlightenment…

Is it safe, okay, or legal to put kindergärtners in a booster seat? If not, why shouldn’t a kindergarten-aged child use a booster?

I vastly prefer this question to the previous, because it indicates that the parents are at least using some form of car seat, or are considering doing so. The answer is also far less black-and-white than the seat belt question (which, once again, is no). Is it safe to booster a kindergartner? The answer is maybe, but generally not. Or in other words, it depends.

I recently wrote about Swedish policies regarding car seat use. In one of the two wealthy countries on Earth where children are least likely to die from car traffic (the other being Norway), the standard practice is to move children directly from rear-facing seats into high-back booster seats, with no forward-facing seat stage in between.

However, children are regularly rear-faced until 4 or 5 in Sweden. So what gives?

In Sweden, the reasoning is that harnessed seats a.) aren’t any safer than booster seats once kids reach an appropriate age for their use, and b.) that harnessed seats may increase neck loads due to restraining the body but not the head (which is the same reasoning behind the creation and use of HANS devices in auto racing) compared to seat belts in booster seats, which allow a more fluid movement of the torso and head. In the US, despite widespread advocacy for forward-facing seats over boosters, studies have yet to show a safety difference between harnessed seats and booster seats once children are old enough to sit properly in either (i.e., straight and centered).

The question then becomes not whether booster seats are safe for kindergartners, but whether your kindergartner can sit safely in a booster seat, even while asleep. Some children can do so by 5. Most children can do so by 7. Almost no children will do so at 4. The Swedes make it work at 5 by using high-back boosters, which keep kids’ heads positioned properly even when asleep. However, this still requires a child who will sit responsibly while awake. You have to know your children to know when this will be feasible for them.

So is it okay? It depends on your child. Is it legal? Throughout the United States, yes.

Personally, I think two of the best dedicated boosters on the market today are the Clek Oobr and Maxi-Cosi RodiFix, and I’d give the edge to the RodiFix because, like most Swedish car seats (and European ones in general), it doesn’t feature cup holders. The lack of arm rests also means your kids won’t get the seat belts stuck on them while buckling themselves in. If you’re on a smaller budget, the Britax Parkway also does a great job. Whichever seat you choose, it’s worth looking for ones that include LATCH connectors, as these will allow you to permanently attach the seats to your vehicle, preventing them from becoming projectiles when they aren’t buckled in.

The remaining questions are easier to answer; they’re just ever-higher levels of safety.

Is it safe, okay, or legal to forward-face kindergärtners? If not, why shouldn’t a kindergarten-aged child be forward-facing?

 Yes, it’s safe, okay, and legal to forward-face kindergärtners. The only practical reasons why a kindergarten-aged child shouldn’t be forward-facing are if a.) she no longer fits her seat by height or weight, or b.) you have the opportunity to continue rear-facing in her current seat. It takes the work out of figuring out whether or not your child is ready for a booster seat; you just buckle her into the seat and continue using it until she outgrows it.
If you’re looking for specific forward-facing seat recommendations, I’m always a fan of the Britax Frontier and Pinnacle, due to how long they allow kids to be harnessed before converting into long-lived booster seats. Between the two, I prefer the Frontier because it gives more options for 3 across car seat installations.

Is it safe, okay, or legal to rear-face kindergärtners? If not, why shouldn’t a kindergarten-aged child be rear-facing?

An Extend2Fit is a cheap and easy way to keep rear-facing until kindergarten (Car Crash Detective)
An Extend2Fit is a cheap and easy way to keep rear-facing until kindergarten.

Finally, while very few people in the US would entertain the idea of rear-facing a kindergärtner, this is ultimately the safest option out there. Rear-facing doesn’t stop being much safer than forward-facing when children grow older; it’s safer at all stages of life, and that includes in adulthood. However, it becomes increasingly difficult as kids enter the elementary years simply because there are very few seats with the height and weight limits necessary to accommodate children in these sizes. However, there are a few out there.

In Sweden, you can buy car seats that allow you to rear-face all the way to 55 pounds, potentially allowing rear-facing until 6 or even longer. In the US, our best seats–such as the Graco Extend2Fit, Clek Fllo, Diono Rainier, Clek Foonf–allow you to rear-face until 50 pounds, which is a great improvement over how the car seat scene looked just a few years ago here. Fifty pounds will be enough to allow you to make it until at least 4 or 5, which is how long you’ll find the typical Swedish child rear-facing. The kids don’t protest it there because their parents treat it as normal, as do their grandparents and everyone else they come into contact with.

Among the US seats, the Extend2Fit is my favorite example for this phase, as it not only features one of the highest weight limits at 50 lbs, it also features the highest height limit (it’s 49″, or the same as the forward-facing height limit), which means you’ll might even be able to rear-face until 6 or 7 if you really want to, depending on the height and weight of your child. Growth charts indicate that a 50th percentile boy or girl (the charts are the same) won’t reach 50 pounds until age 7 and 49″ until 7.5.

In summary, rear-facing a kindergärtner is the safest option out there. It’s okay if you choose to do so, and yes, it’s legal. It’s our approach with our children–just as it is in Sweden.

—

If you find the information on car safety, recommended car seats, and car seat reviews on this car seat blog helpful, you can shop through this Amazon link for any purchases, car seat-related or not. Canadians can shop through this link for Canadian purchases.

What are the Best Car Seats for Preschoolers (And Why Should They Rear-Face)?

Preschoolers can forward-face during piggy-back rides, but should always rear-face during car rides.
Preschoolers can forward-face during piggy-back rides, but should always rear-face during car rides.

Since starting this blog, I’ve had the pleasure of writing a number of articles on the benefits of extended rear-facing and the even greater pleasure of answering more than a thousand emails related to the best car seats or cars for children and families of a range of ages and sizes. Lately, two of the most frequent questions I’ve been fielding from parents involve a.) what the best car seats are for preschoolers and b.) whether or not preschoolers should still be rear-facing. If you’re in a hurry, the answer to the first question is convertible car seats like the Graco Extend2Fit, the Clek Fllo, and Diono Rainier, and the answer to the second question is yes, yes, yes. If you’ve got some time to learn more, let’s go into both of these answers with a bit more detail. And no, preschoolers shouldn’t be in booster seats.

What are the best car seats for preschoolers, or 3-, 4-, and 5-year olds?

extend2fit - 1    

The Graco Extend2Fit – Review Here, Buy Here.
The Clek Fllo – Review Here, Buy Here.
The Diono Rainier – Review Here, Buy Here.
The Clek Foonf – Review Here, Buy Here.

The best car seats for preschoolers (which typically include three, four, and five-year olds, are seats that allow them to sit rear-facing. In the US, rear-facing at these ages is very rare; studies have shown that only 1 out of 4 parents are still rear-facing by age 2, and the figures for rear-facing at 3, 4, and 5 are far, far lower. However, rear-facing is unequivocally safer at these ages for a variety of reasons. We’ll look at those in a moment. However, under the assumption that children who are 3, 4, or 5 should be rear-facing, the top seats on the market are the Graco Extend2Fit, Clek Fllo, Diono Rainier, and Clek Foonf, which all allow rear-facing until 50 pounds.

Of these seats, the Extend2Fit is my favorite all-around seat because it allows rear-facing until 50 pounds and up to 49″ in height, which means virtually all children who use it will be able to rear-face until they’re out of preschool. The Fllo and Foonf are my favorites for making 3 across car seat installations work due to their extraordinary narrow width of 17″; between the two seats, there isn’t much of a difference in functionality, and the Fllo is cheaper, so that’s almost always my primary recommendation between the two.

If your priority is to keep your child in the same seat for as long as possible, then you’ll want to look at the Rainier and the Pacifica (if you can find one, as it’s since been discontinued), as both allow extended harnessing, or extended time forward-facing once you’ve exceeded either the 50 pound rear-facing weight limits or the rear-facing height limits. Both car seats also include a booster mode that can potentially give your child additional years within the same seat. However, don’t get stuck looking too closely at the details between the aforementioned seats; any of them is an excellent choice for a preschooler. If you completely can’t decide, just get the Fllo if you don’t have much room in your back seat or the Extend2Fit if you do.

Should preschoolers forward-face or rear-face?

Preschoolers should always be rear-facing. With the range of seats currently on the market that allow children to rear-face until 50 pounds and well past 40″ in height, it’s no longer a question of not being able to find or afford seats that allow kids to travel much more safely by car than at any other time in recent history. Remember that even though rear-facing at 3, 4, and 5 is rare in the United States, it’s the default approach in the two countries that feature the lowest rates of child traffic deaths in the world: Sweden and Norway.

I recently wrote up a guide to Swedish car seat practices for Americans, and in it noted that despite the lack of any national laws requiring extended rear-facing, the idea of doing so had been so heavily infused into the culture that it was normal and natural to see parents rear-facing their children until 4 or 5 by default.

Parents don’t feel like outliers when rear-facing until 4-5 because everyone else is doing it; it isn’t known as “extended rear-facing” there, and parents don’t have to justify to fellow parents or spouses why they haven’t turned their car seats around. It’s just what you do.

With that kind of cultural acceptance of extended rear-facing in place, it’s no surprise that parents don’t feel a pressure to forward-face. While it’s difficult to bring that acceptance of extended rear-facing to the United States and Canada, there’s no question that the tide is changing as awareness grows across both countries about the benefits of keeping kids rear-facing. And regardless of what’s going on around you, as a parent, you are the ultimate authority on best practices for your child, and when you know that there’s no need to forward-face a preschooler once you have a seat that fits him or her, it’s just a question of making the choice to keep him or her as safe as possible for as long as possible.

Why should preschoolers always rear-face?

Finally, preschoolers should always rear-face because it’s safer for them to do so. The precise degree of safety is always up for debate and will vary from one study to another, but one of the most frequently cited figures is a fivefold difference in the risk of serious injury (e.g., brain damage) or death for a forward-facing child vs. a rear-facing child.  I’ve gone into detail about what exactly makes rear-facing safer than forward-facing in a number of articles, including one on the concept of the orphan seat and how it applies to children rear-facing in severe collisions. The excerpt below discusses how children’s proportions are different from those of adults, putting children at much greater risks of head and neck injury from trauma that would not necessarily lead to severe injury or death in adults.

Proportionally speaking, a child’s head is quite relatively compared to the rest of his or her body, and as a result, in a collision, the child’s neck must deal with that proportionally greater strain. To put it even more simply, if a 160-pound woman had the proportions of a baby, her head would weigh 40 pounds and her neck would be a lot more likely to break in much milder collisions than those normal adults could walk away from.

The science is clear; the facts have remained unchanged for decades. The Swedes started extended rear-facing more than 30 years ago, at least back to the 1980s, and we still haven’t caught up to them in terms of a cultural permeation of the importance of rear-facing. The American Association of Pediatrics recommendations are still far, far behind best practices by only recommending rear-facing until 2 or until seats are outgrown; this isn’t good enough.

The recommendation needs to state clearly that rear-facing is the best choice for children until at least 4 years of age, while continuing to emphasize rear-facing afterward until the height and weight limits of the seats are reached. To recommend anything else is to continue to neglect our responsibilities to promote best practices throughout society to the benefit of our youngest fellow human beings.

If you find my information on best practices in car and car seat safety helpful, you can do your shopping through this Amazon link. Canadians can  shop here for Canadian purchases. Have a question or want to discuss best practices? Join us in the forums!

35,000 Americans will die this year on the road. You don't have to be one of them. A car seat and car safety blog to promote best practices for families.