Even the Swedes have limits. What kinds of car seats are taboo in the land of best practices?
One of my favorite resources for information on best practices is the Swedish national Society for Road Safety, or the NTF (Saker Trafik). They’re basically the Swedish version of the NHTSA, and they have a lovely frequently asked question section with all kinds of answers related to the promotion of safe road traffic. I’ve written about them before here (Swedish Car Safety FAQ) and revisited to share their thoughts on a question that comes up from time to time: which kinds of car seats are dangerous?
We know that best practices from a car seat perspective basically means to rear-face until your child is at least 4 or 5 and then to booster until your child is at least 10 to 12. You can do this with two seats readily available in the United States: the Graco Extend2Fit and the Clek Oobr (or if you want to keep within the same company, the Clek Fllo can be your convertible car seat). But what do you want to avoid when it comes to a car seat? We’ll tackle that question today.
Which Kinds of Car Seats are Dangerous, Per Swedish Best Practices?
According to the NTF, the kinds of car seats they’d call “dangerous” are the ones that allow you to forward-face from the age of 1. To quote them specifically, thanks to Google Translate:
There are car seats on the market that are approved for forward-facing placement from about 1 year of age. We could probably call them “dangerous”.
NTF recommends using a car seat that can withstand rear-facing occupants for as long as possible, preferably up to 25 kg. The absolute safest way to travel in a car is in reverse. Children should therefore go back as long as possible, preferably up to 4-5 years of age.
Is that really all it takes to make a car seat safe?
Per the Swedes, yes. And no one knows more about car seat safety than they do; they have and continue to have the best track record when it comes to keeping kids alive on the road of any country. Now, there are other parts to road safety, of course. You’ll want to drive as little as possible (the Swedes average only a fraction of Americans’ average annual mileage), and choose safe speeds (that means 43 mph on undivided highways and 62 mph on divided ones) and choose safe roads (the divided ones) whenever you do, and you’ll be far ahead of the game. The full list of articles related to best practices in driving behaviors, vehicle selection, and road infrastructure is here.
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. It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.
How safe is this sweet little boy when riding in a car across the 50 states? Let’s take a look together!
One of the most tricky parts of keeping kids safe is knowing what best practices are – then following them. I’ve reviewed what best practices look like for rear-facing, forward-facing, and boostering–best practices largely based on Swedish norms, which have been the best in the world for decades and continue to be. However, it’s also helpful to know what the rules and regulations are across the United States. Unfortunately, none of them come close to Swedish best practices, but knowing how far individual states are from what’s best for keeping kids safe gives you knowledge of where to advocate next, whether with friends and family or at the local, state, or national levels if you’re so inclined. Today we’re not simply going to recite chapter and verse of whatever laws are on the books; that’s information you can find easily, but without context, it’s just numbers. The fun part comes when we compare what each state requires with what we’d see if each state followed the policies that lead to the best outcomes for kids overseas. Ready? Let’s go!
The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law would be fine without the weight exemption. The boostering law is at least 4 years too short. And there’s a bizarre law that seat belts aren’t required once children reach 15 years of age. The correct answer, of course, is that seat belts or an equivalent restraint system are required for safety for any form of 4-wheeled travel, regardless of age.
The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law is fine. The boostering law is at least 2 years too short. The 57 inch requirement is sensible, but the way the law is written, the driver can override weight and height considerations once the child turns 8, which makes 8 the functional bottleneck.
The state laws are bizarre. They don’t specifically mandate rear-facing, forward-facing, or booster use, but state that children who are under 8 and not more than 57 inches must use child restraint systems. Additionally, you don’t need to use such restraints (and can presumably use seat belts) if you transport multiple children, have at least one properly restrained, and decide that there isn’t room to properly restrain the rest. Needless to say, there is little here to admire in a discussion of best practices.
The state laws are bizarre. Again, rear-facing and forward-facing are not explicitly required, but simply child restrained systems for those under 6. Seat belts do not appear to be required after age 15. Again, there is little to admire here in a discussion of best practices. The implied booster limit is at least 4 years too short, and there are no guidelines whatsoever to encourage rear-facing.
The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short. There is a requirement that children under 8 sit in the back, but no requirement to forward-face until at least 5 if parents aren’t willing to rear-face until then. The booster limit is at least 2 years too short.
The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short. The forward-facing law is a year too short. The boostering law is at least 2 years too short. It includes wording about part of the 5-step test, but not all of the language, and it also allows children to be restrained by lap belts, which are absolutely not enough for safe transportation.
The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short. The forward-facing law would be fine without the weight exemption. The booster law is at least 2 years too short.
The state laws are bizarre. As in other states, there are no explicit requirements to rear-face or forward-face. The booster law is at least 2 years too short, and again, seat belts do not seem to be required once children reach 16.
Here’s another state with bizarre laws. It doesn’t seem to matter what your child is doing as long as she’s in some kind of car seat until 4, at which point you can switch to a booster. The booster law is at least 4 years too short, and the law actually states children 6 and above must use seat belts. Of course, you can most likely continue to use boosters (or forward-face or even rear-face with the right seats).
Here’s another state that doesn’t require rear- or forward-facing but simply says you’re good to go, seat-belt wise, once your child hits 8 or 57 inches. Additionally, once kids turn 9, they can ride in the front seat (another bad idea).
Another state, another set of poor, poor laws. There are no guides for rear-facing, the forward-facing law is implied simply due to the fact that kids between 4 and 8 can use boosters, suggesting kids under 4 cannot, and the booster law ends 2 years too soon with an absurdly low weight exception that would allow many 4-year olds to use seat belts.
These are the worst laws I’ve come across yet. Children under 7 must be restrained in child restraints, but the kinds of restraints are never discussed, nor are rear-facing, forward-facing, or boostering. The law additionally notes that restraints of any kind are optional if all available seat belts are being used as long as the child is placed somewhere in the back. Restraints are also optional if the child is being held to be nursed or cared for in any other immediate need. In other words, if you decide to feed your child while speeding down the highway, you are free to hold her.This is, quite frankly, insane, and the kind of practice found all over the poor parts of the world with devastating results. The law additionally notes that people can’t be charged with negligence for not restraining their children. Idaho is a backwards state when it comes to child car safety.
The rear-facing law is at least 2 years too short, there isn’t a forward-facing law, and the boostering law is at least 2 years too short. That said, the laws are far better than those in Idaho.
Another state with bizarrely unclear laws. There’s no guide to rear- or forward-facing, and the implied booster limit is at least 2 years too short. The law also implies that seat belts are optional once children turn 17.
The rear-facing law is at least 3 years too short, there isn’t a forward-facing law, and the booster law is at least 4 years too short. Overall, as has been the case with every state so far, Iowa remains far away from best practices.
Here’s another state with obtuse laws. The only clear limit appears to be a requirement to use something besides a seat belt until a child turns 8 and reaches certain height and weight limits. The age limit is still at least 2 years too early, and again, there’s no guidance on how long to rear- or forward-face.
The law is, as we’ve seen repeatedly in this survey, vague. There is no guide to rear-facing and only a height limit to curtail booster use. The booster limit itself is at least 2 years too early, even though at 57 inches, most children would have the height to sit safely. Height, however, does not automatically bring maturity. And the laws as written are immature.
Louisiana currently has the best car seat laws in the country. Rear-facing is still 2 years to short and I’d like to see a year more for forward-facing (because while 4-year olds can sit safely in boosters, they need to be taught very explicitly to do so, and waiting until 5 will be easier for many US parents), but the booster law, while a year shorter than I’d like to see, is the first that explicitly walks parents through (most of) the 5-step test for readiness, which is textbook best practices. The law also states to choose the more protective category if a child can fit in multiple categories, as well as that children must be transported in the back seats when under 13. Go Luisiana! The laws aren’t perfect, but they’re better than any I’ve seen so far.
Maine’s rear-facing law is 2 years too short, but I like their 55 pound forward-facing restriction, as that’ll carry children well into 5 years of age, if not further. The booster law is 2 years too short but when combined with the height and weight limits is better than most in the country. I also like the inclusion of the requirement to seat children under 12 and 100 pounds in the back seats, although raising the requirement to 13 would be better.
Maryland joins an unhealthy number of states with near-nonexistant guidance regarding rear-facing or forward-facing, and simply tells parents to put their kids in something until they’re 8. This, once again, is bum practice, not best practice.
Michigan’s laws on car seat safety continue the trend of laws that leave much to the imagination and much to be improved. There’s no rear-facing guideline, the forward-facing guideline can only be inferred from the boostering guideline, and the booster guideline ends a year too early while lacking any mention of the 5-step test.
Minnesota’s laws are as bad as those in most parts of the US, but to their credit, they explicitly note that they are only providing a minimum standard of safety and have nothing to do with best practices. I suppose it’s good that they at least made this obvious to parents.
Boostering: Under 8 and under 80 pounds and 57 inches.
Missouri’s laws are rather wordy but still don’t say much when it comes to best practices. A positive is the requirement for children below 40 pounds, regardless of age, to use a harnessed seat. Cons include the lack of guidance toward rear- and forward-facing as well as the booster limits that end 2 years too soon.
Montanta’s wording is sparse but gets the point across: we don’t care about best practices. Your only restraint requirements end at 6 years and 60 pounds, which is 4 years too early to end boostering.
Nebraska beats Michigan by having one of the best rear-facing rules in the nation (until 2), but it still falls at least 2 years behind best practices. Nothing is mentioned for forward-facing, and the booster law ends 2 years too soon.
New Hampshire joins the worst of the worst states with next-to-no laws on the books aside from a catch-all put them in something law that ends 3 years too soon for boostered children.
New Jersey’s laws are among the best in the nation in that they provide specific guidelines for rear-, forward-facing, and boostering. That said, the rear guidelines end 2 years too soon, the forward guidelines end a year sooner than I’d like, and the booster laws end 2 years too soon. That said, we’d be better off if every state’s laws looked at least like New Jersey’s.
New Mexico’s rear-facing rule ends 3 years too soon. Their forward-facing law has a good year limit but far too low of a weight limit, as it could allow 40-pound 3 year olds to move into boosters, which isn’t safe under any circumstances. However, the booster limit is right in line with best practices, as it mandates booster use until the 5-step test is passed.
New York’s laws are wordy but confusing. The core points are to rear-face until 2, which is still 2 years too short, and to booster until 8, which is also 2 years too short.
North Carolina’s laws are brief and, as is the case in most states, next to useless. The one positive note is the booster requirement until 8 and 80 pounds, although it’s still 2 years too early with no mention of the 5-step test.
North Dakota’s standards are as poor as those in most states; there’s no rear-facing requirement, the forward-facing requirement is only implied and is nullified by the 40 pound exclusion, and the booster limit is 2 years too early. There’s also the ditty about how children only need proper restraints until 15.
Ohio receives some credit for requiring rear-facing until 2, although that’s still 2 years too short, but all credit can be removed by their inclusion of the exclusion that children can be forward-faced once they outgrow their seats by weight or height (whichever comes first). This naturally defeats the purpose of the initial requirement, as a parent bent on forward-facing could do so in most infant seats before 1 by simply following height restrictions. I mention this here not to particularly shame Ohio’s lawmakers, but to point out again how these laws are poorly written in just about every state, as dozens of states have similar exclusions in their rear-facing guidelines. If you want a child to rear-face until 2, you make that the law and additionally stipulate that parents must seek seats capable of reaching this requirement. You can provide links to suitable seats or similar resources for parents who need help finding or affording such seats. You don’t simply allow parents to opt out by telling them “we don’t mean it once your child outgrows her first infant seat wink wink.”Oh, and the forward-facing law is a year too short and is only implied. The boostering law is 2 years too short. If you read prior state laws, you knew this already.
Oklahoma uses the same “rear-face until 2 or you decide your seat doesn’t fit tee-hee” approach as Ohio and too many other states. Even without the neutering exclusion, kids there would still fall 2 years short of best practices. There are no guidelines for forward-facing and the booster requirement is the standard 2-year too short one found in many states.
Oregon doesn’t rear-face long enough by 2 years, but at least requires the first 2 years. The forward-facing law is too short, as is the booster law (by 2 years).
Pennsylvania’s laws have a lot of words but, as we’ve seen repeatedly in this survey with other wordy states, don’t actually say much. The bottom line is that rear-facing is only required for half as long as would be optimal from a best practices standpoint, forward-facing is implied for 4 years instead of for 5, and boostering can be ended 2 years too soon.
Rhode Island requires rear-facing until 2 (2 years too short), forward-facing until seats are outgrown (good, but a requirement until 5 would be best), and boostering until 8, which is (as almost always) 2 years too soon.
Boostering: Until 8 and 57 inches tall with the 5-step test.
South Carolina does better than most states. They don’t rear-face long enough (2 years too short), forward-face long enough, or booster long enough, but do require the 5-step test (for the most part) be passed before children can use adult seat belts.
You’ve got a friend, Idaho! Welcome to the second-worst laws in the nation, courtesy of South Dakota. Here, you only need to restrain your child in a car seat (which may be a booster) until she turns 5. However, even that bizarre requirement can be waived once your child tips the scales at 40 pounds. From that point on, she’s good to go in a seat belt just like a full-fledged adult!Needless to say, these are terrible laws. That said, Idaho still gives them a run for their money by encouraging you to feed your unrestrained child. I think they’re still the worst I’ve found.
Tennessee’s laws are typically bad, but as we’ve seen, have no dearth of company. The rear-facing laws are too short by 3 years, the forward-facing ones by 2, and the booster laws by 2, although the 5-step test is the ultimate authority there.
Texas’ laws are nothing to write home about; the only actual guideline they seem to have is the standard one about boostering, which ends 2 years too early and lacks the 5-step test. You’re on your own for rear- or forward-facing.
It becomes obvious how many of these states simply copied each others’ laws without adding any thought or consultation to their improvement. Utah does what Texas and half of the other states do, which is next to nothing.
Vermont’s laws are far too short for rear-facing safely (4 years too short), say nothing about forward-facing, and say next to nothing about boostering (and are 2 years too short). Next!
Virginia requires rear-facing until 2 while, as is often the case, giving parents the ol’ weight/height exclusion. They don’t mention forward-facing and do tell you to booster until 8. They also note that you can’t throw kids in the cargo area without restraining them. Progress, I suppose.
Boostering: Until 57 inches and encouraged until 5-step test is passed.
Washington has some of the better rules on the books as of 2020; they require rear-facing until 2 (2 years too soon), forward-facing until 4 (1 year too soon), and boostering until 57 inches with encouragement to continue to do so until the 5-step test is passed. They also encourage rear-facing past 2 although they allow the weight/height escape clauses. And unlike most states, require transporting kids under 13 in the back, although they allow an escape clause if it is not “practical.”
West Virginia uses the same basic copy-pasted, lowest-bidder legislation found in dozens of other states. Ignore it and do better (as is the case throughout this article, without exception).
The Wisconsin law is both bad and confusing. The rear-facing law is bad, the forward-facing law is better, although 1 year too short, but the boostering law goes from urging booster use for kids under 8 who weigh at least 80 pounds and are under 57 inches tall to stating that kids under 8 can also just use seat belts. Perhaps it’s a riddle, or just an extremely poorly-written law. In either case, it still wouldn’t be best practices. Booster until the 5-step test is passed. This typically isn’t until 10-12. End of story.
Wyoming’s law is bad, but as you’ve seen above, it has company. They briefly mention not placing rear-facing infants in front of airbags, but don’t mention if you’re supposed to rear-face at all, and if so, for how long. There’s a similar dearth of information on forward-facing and boostering, although we can assume the need to booster ends at 8 since they provide information encouraging seat belt use at 8 or younger provided that the belt fits properly. From reading the CCD, you know the belt’s not going to fit properly, so they’re essentially giving useless advice at best and bad advice at worst, as very few parents interested in seat belting their 7 or 6 or 5 or 4 year olds will stop and buy a car seat instead after deciding the belt didn’t fit properly. This is a bad law, and it’s a fitting end to a country full of them.
The United States is full of bad laws related to car seat safety
As you can see, the state of car seat legislation in the United States in 2020 is enough to make your head hurt. This isn’t Sweden. If you want best practices, you’ll need to learn them and enforce them yourself. Keep your family safe. Encourage your friends and family to do the same. Don’t follow state guidelines, because they’re not based on the rules that keep far more kids alive in Sweden and Norway when seconds away from a serious crash than the rules we’ve written up here.
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. It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.
On January 1st, 2019, Illinois will become one of a handful of states throughout the US to require rear-facing infants from birth until age 2. The standard requirement to rear-face in the United States ends at age 1, which isn’t optimal, since research in Sweden has consistently shown benefits for extended rear-facing until 4. In fact, rear-facing remains the safest position for travel in a moving vehicle regardless of age (yes, including into and throughout adulthood). However, the greatest benefits of extended rear-facing are during the first five years of life when the spinal and cervical structures are most fragile in young children. Good job Illinois!
What exactly is the new Illinois law on rear-facing?
The exact language in the bill, HB4377, is contained here. The law itself is Public Act 100-0672, which you can read here. Here’s the most important part:
When any person is transporting a child in this State who
is under the age of 2 years in a motor vehicle of the first
division or motor vehicle of the second division weighing 9,000
pounds or less, he or she shall be responsible for properly
securing the child in a rear-facing child restraint system,
unless the child weighs 40 or more pounds or is 40 or more
inches tall.
In other words, if you’re driving a normal vehicle (one weighing under 9,001 pounds, which describes just about any car, pickup truck, SUV, or minivan you can buy), you need to rear-face any children traveling in the vehicle who are under the age of 2 unless these children weigh 40 pounds or more or are 40 or more inches tall. Given the fact that virtually no children are going to weigh 40 pounds or reach 40 inches before their second birthdays (see growth charts for boys and girls here), the rule effectively applies to all children under the age of 2.
But my infant has outgrown his or her infant seat! What do I use?
The Graco Extend2Fit is probably the best convertible seat you can buy in the United States today.
If you’re worried about compliance with the new law because your baby isn’t going to make it to 2 in his or her infant seat, worry no more. Virtually no babies do! This is precisely why convertible car seats exist. While most parents drive their babies home from the hospital in infant seats, it’s perfectly legal to do so in a convertible seat as long as it fits your baby by weight and has harness straps or an infant insert that allow you to get a proper fit. At any rate, whether you start out with an infant seat and switch to a convertible or start with a convertible seat from day one, you’ve got a lot of seats to choose from. I typically recommend the Graco Extend2Fit; it’s one of the cheapest extended-rear facing convertibles on the market yet it’ll allow you to rear-face as long as any seat currently available in the United States thanks to its 50 pound weight limit and 49″ height limit.
What are the best convertibles for extended-rear facing and 3 across compatibility?
While I prefer the Extend2Fit due to its cheaper price, if you need 3-across compatibility, you’ll want the Clek Fllo.
If you need a narrower seat due to having multiple children (hello 3 across car seat guide!) or wanting to carry adult passengers, my standard recommendation is the Clek Fllo. At 17″ wide, it’s one of the two narrowest seats on the market that allow you to rear-face until 50 pounds (the other being its brand twin the Clek Foonf). It’s important to note, however, that in order to rear-face from birth, you’ll need to pick up the Infant-thingy insert, or else you’ll have a minimum weight of 14 pounds for rear-facing. If you’re wondering what the differences are between the Fllo and the Foonf, you can read about them here. In short, though, for most families considering both seats, the Fllo will be the better choice.
Your almost-teens might still need boosters, no matter how much they glare at you. Here’s what you need to know to keep them safe.
It’s not easy being a parent today; while studies have shown that mortality among children are at all time lows, watching the news has us more afraid than possibly any other generation in modern history. Drugs, alcohol, sex, guns, bullying, standardized testing, terrorism–the list goes on and on. I try to make the world a bit more manageable by focusing on best practices in car safety and car seat safety for children, which is why you’ll find articles on just about everything related to keeping kids and adults safe in and around cars on The Car Crash Detective.
What are general best practices for children in car seats?
Why don’t most parents consider booster seats for middle schoolers?
In general, middle schoolers, or children between 11 and 13, are almost never found in car seats in the United States and Canada, despite the fact that a number of them might still benefit from having boosters. This typically occurs due to one of two reasons: either parents see their kids as big enough to sit safely without them or children refuse to sit in car seats after a certain age out of a desire to imitate parents, siblings or peers, or out of a fear of being ridiculed by the latter.
When it comes to middles schoolers, they do benefit from booster seats when they haven’t yet passed the 5-step test. While the NHTSA recommends kids stay in boosters until they fit seat belts well, which they note typically occurs when kids are around 4 foot 9 inches, or 57 inches, this guideline isn’t always going to be enough. And while plenty of states permit kids to use adult seat belts much earlier (some don’t even have front seat age requirements past the one year rear-facing limit), we can’t look to the government for guidance here, because best practices in car safety and car seat safety are years away from our laws. The 5-step test is a much better guide, as it’s based on…best practices.
As a reminder, here’s what your pre-teen should look like and be able to do 100% of the time without a booster seat. If you don’t see these positions, your middle schooler isn’t yet ready to use an adult seat belt. While I’ll use the pronoun “she” below, the guide applies equally to boys and girls.
1.) When she’s sitting, her shoulder belt should cross directly over the middle of her shoulder rather than across her neck or on the outer part of her arm.
2.) The lap belt should sit low on her thighs rather than over her waist or above her stomach. 3.) Her bottom should sit at the intersection of the lower and upper vehicle seats; there shouldn’t be a gap between her back and the back of the vehicle seat. 4.) Her knees shouldn’t bend until they are past the bottom seat’s edge, and her feet should rest flat on the floor rather than fully or partially in the air. 5.) She should be able to sit in this position for as long as the vehicle is in motion without moving; she shouldn’t find this position uncomfortable to maintain.
Every one of these factors should be in place before your son or daughter switches to an adult seat belt, and all of them overrule the general height guidelines. It doesn’t mean something is wrong with your child if she doesn’t meet the guidelines yet; it just means she isn’t ready. She will be soon; virtually all typically developing kids are ready to pass the 5-step test by their 13th birthdays–which, not coincidentally, is when kids can sit in the front seat, per the NHTSA.
If my pre-teen needs a car seat, which do you recommend?
If you want a booster to take your child all the way through to seat belt eligibility, the Clek Oobr is perhaps the best option on the market.
If your not-quite-teenager doesn’t pass the booster test, you’ll want to buy a booster seat. For older children, any high back or backless booster will work as long as it lifts your child enough for her to pass the 5-step test as described above. A great example of a backless booster is the Clek Olli. It’s discreet and comes in a wide range of colors for picky pre-teens.
The Peg Perego Flex 120 is another excellent option for a long-term booster seat.
If you’re looking for a seat for a younger child (one at least 4 years old) that can be used until she no longer needs a booster seat of any kind, you’ll want to start with a high back booster, as they’ll position kids properly even when they’re asleep, which is safer for younger kids.
The three best high back boosters on the market are the Clek Oobr, Maxi-Cosi RodiFix, and Peg Perego Viaggio Flex 120. Of the three, the Oobr has the advantage of being able to split into a backless booster if you’d like that option down the road. However, all three seats will last kids throughout the booster years until they’re ready for adult seat belts.
Remember: the goal here isn’t to annoy your pre-teens, but to keep them safe. Most aren’t going to need car seats at this point, but some will. And that’s okay. Keep being the beacon of best practices; you’ll have rougher waters ahead in a few years, and emphasizing the importance of responsibility now will help shape their decision-making later.
The Britax Multi-tech III rear-faces from 20 to 55 pounds in Sweden. Why isn’t it sold in the US?
One of the most interesting facets of car seat safety involves the differences in cultural attitudes toward car seat usage and auto safety overall, which is reflected in the availability of different seats in different regions of the world. For example, Britax regularly sells car seats capable of rear-facing up to 55 pounds throughout Europe, particularly in the UK, Sweden, and Norway. However, they don’t sell any seats capable of rear-facing past 40 pounds in the United States as of November 2017, and this has been the case for years, despite the availability of such 55-pound rear-facing seats overseas for more than a decade. Why is that? And does it really matter? Let’s take a closer look at these questions today.
There’s (almost) no demand for 55-pound rear-facing in the United States
The Britax Two-Way also rear-faces from 20 to 55 pounds in Sweden. But almost no one would buy it if it were available in the US…so it isn’t.
The primary reason why 55-pound rear-facing seats aren’t yet available in the United States is because there’s almost no demand for them. Car seat manufacturers don’t stay in business by making seats no one buys; there’s a large demand for rear-facing seats in Sweden and Norway, where most children rear-face until 4 to 5. However, in the United States, where most children are forward-facing by age 2, there’s much less demand for seats that allow kids to rear-face far beyond that.
There are definitely exceptions; as of today, there are 7 convertible car seats that allow children to rear-face until they hit 50 pounds: The Clek Fllo, the Clek Foonf, the Diono Rainier, the Graco Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit 3-in-1, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Nuna Rava, the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, and the Safety 1st Grow and Go EX Air. However, only one of these existed when I started this blog in 2014, the Clek Foonf. We’ve made progress in raising awareness of the importance of rear-facing, and more parents are doing so in the US than ever before, but it’s still a very, very, very small market here compared to what’s the norm in Sweden.
It’s also important to note that while you can buy Swedish seats and import them to the US to use them with children on this side of the pond, this is illegal because Swedish seats aren’t legal for US use since they aren’t tested by the NHTSA. There are plenty of ways to get around the law if you’re interested in doing so for a number of things in life, but we’re focusing here on why such seats aren’t legally sold in the United States or Canada.
With that in mind, it’s important to note that just because we can’t rear-face past 50 pounds in the United States doesn’t mean our kids are leaving a lot of safety on the table compared to their Swedish siblings. In fact, the best rear-facing seats in the US have a lot in common with the best Swedish ones. Next we’ll take a look at four 55-pound rear-facing Swedish seats.
Which Swedish car seats rear-face until 55 pounds, and how do they compare to American seats?
I recently reviewed the Britax Max-Way II (which rear-faces from 20-55 pounds) and compared it to US convertible seats. It’s not that different from the best ones here.
I recently wrote about how one of the most common Swedish rear-facing car seats, the Britax Max-Way, was not that different from extended rear-facing convertibles available in the US (e.g., the Clek Fllo or Diono Rainier). It’s one of four commonly sold 55-pound rear-facing car seats available overseas via Britax; three others are the Britax Hi-Way 2, which succeeded the Britax Hi-Way some years ago, the Britax Two-Way, a much older but still relevant design, and the Britax Multi-Tech III. Three of these seats rear-face from 20-55 pounds while one rear-faces from birth to 55 pounds. None of these seats are available in the US but all are readily available in Sweden and a number of other countries throughout Europe (e.g., via Britax Sweden). The manuals for these seats are typically available in English, Danish, Finnish, Dutch, and Swedish, reflecting sales in the UK, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, and of course, Sweden.
The Britax Hi-Way II is designed to rear-face from 0-55 pounds. However, Britax only sells it in Europe.
While all four of these seats may seem far more advanced, sophisticated, and yes, safer, than anything available in the US, it’s essential to note that the Swedes themselves don’t credit the seats with their exceptional safety record for the fewest children lost to car crashes per capita year after year. To the Swedes, the difference comes primarily from rear-facing. Indeed, if you look at the seats more closely, you’ll realize that, practically speaking, you can’t rear-face in them any longer than you can in the best American seats.
Really?
Yes! As with American seats, the usability of Swedish car seats is primarily limited by height instead of by weight, even though seats there, like seats here, are primarily marketed by height.
How long can Swedish car seats actually be used to rear face compared to the best US convertibles?
Want Swedish rear-facing time on a budget? Just get a Graco Extend2Fit–or any of the other 50 pound seats.
When it comes down to it, you can actually get about as much time rear-facing in the best US convertibles as you can from the best Swedish seats. Let’s compare the four above to some of their closest American counterparts.
The Britax Max-Way is a Group 1/2 seat designed for kids from 9 months to 6 years of age. It rear-faces (and only rear-faces) from 9-25 kg, or 20-55 lbs. It has a height limit of around 120 cm, or 47 inches.
The Britax Hi-Way II is a Group 0/1/2 seat designed for kids from birth to 6. It rear-faces from 0-25 kg, or 0-55 lbs. It has a height limit of around 110 cm, or 43 inches.
The Britax Two-Way is another Group 1/2 seat for kids between 9 months and 6 years. It rear-faces and forward-faces from 9-25 kg, or 20-55 lbs. It has a height limit of 125 cm, or 49 inches.
The Britax Multi-Tech III is a Group 1/2 seat aimed at kids between 9 months and 6 years. It can both rear-face and forward-face between 9-25 kg, or 20-55 lbs. It also has a height limit of 125 cm, or 49 inches.
According to growth charts from the Center for Disease Control (which are the same for girls and boys), a 50th percentile child won’t reach 50 pounds until 7 years and 25 kilograms (55 pounds) until approximately 7 years and 9 months. Height-wise, the child won’t reach 43″ until 5 and 49″ until 7 years and 5 months.
A Clek Fllowill give you the same amount of effective rear-facing time as a Britax Max-Way or Hi-Way II despite having a 50-pound weight limit.
In other words, for a 55 pound seat with a 49″ height limit, height is the limiting factor for a typical child, and it limits a seat to 7 years and 5 months, and a 43″ height limit limits a seat to 5 years. There are several 50-pound seats in the US with 49″ height limits, including the Nuna Rava, the Safety 1st Advance EX 65 Air+, the Graco 4Ever Extend2Fit, the Graco Extend2Fit. The Diono Rainier tops out at 44″, which a 40th percentile child will reach by 5 years and 5 months. The Clek Fllo and Clek Foonf top out at 43″, which a 50th percentile child will reach by 5.
What this shows is that any of the 50-pound rear-facing seats currently available in the US will allow you to rear-face as long as you can with two of the four most common 55-pound rear-facing seats available in Sweden, and four separate 50-pound US seats sold in the US will match the rear-facing time an average child can get out of the two tallest 55-pound seats sold in Sweden. There are some unique situations (e.g., heavy, short children) where certain kids could potentially get more time from a Swedish seat than an American one by being too heavy for an American seat yet falling within the height limits, but these will be very, very rare situations. Practically speaking, if you want to rear-face until 4 or 5 or even 6 or 7, you don’t need a Swedish seat; you just need to make the most of an American one. Sort of like how you don’t need the newest cars to travel safely.
Does this mean we don’t need 55-pound rear-facing seats in the United States to keep our kids as safe as those in Sweden?
In a word, yes. Their incredibly low rates of child deaths come from a combination of factors including and beyond extended rear-facing, such as their much closer adherence to best practices in road design and driver behaviors than that found in the US. Swedes drive half as often as Americans, which automatically cuts the risk of death for children and adults alike in half. If we want numbers like those seen in Sweden, we can’t just rear-face and call it a day. As with most societal-scale changes, it’ll require societal-scale commitment. And the US shows no sign of lowering speed limits, reducing auto travel, and redesigning roads to make slower, safer travel a priority over faster, riskier transportation.
If you replaced every 55-pound car seat in Sweden with, say, Clek Fllos, they’d still have the lowest child death rates on the planet. Our seats are good enough. We just aren’t using them–and our driving culture and infrastructure aren’t helping.
Until we adopt societal-level changes, the secrets to keeping your family safe will continue to be found in choosing safe speeds, following best practices with car seats, and choosing safe roads. Don’t wait for the government or your neighbors to follow best practices, or you’ll be waiting an awfully long time.
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.
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. It costs nothing extra to do so, but when you shop through my links, a small portion of your purchase, regardless of what you buy, will go toward the maintenance of The Car Crash Detective.
