Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At what age did you change your Cameleon from pram to buggy?


Our 3.5 month old daughter seems a bit bored lying flat on her back.


Obviously she cannot sit upright independently so the upright position is not suitable, but do you think the semi upright position is ok? Or is 3.5 months too young?


Any thoughts appreciated

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/23998-bugaboo-cameleon-owners/
Share on other sites

We changed it when our son could sit well with support, so about 5 months.


Given that you can lie the chair all the way back if you need to, you could probably change it earlier even though the instrucitons say to wait until 6m. The other option is to use it with your car seat, which is a bit more upright anyway.

We have an old Gecko (sim to Cam) for our daughter. When you change to seat might depend on how well your LO can sit up. Although my daughter could hold her own head up pretty much from birth, she wasn't sitting up well until around 6 or 7 months. We changed around 6 months to the the buggy seat, but left the seat in the semi-reclined and parent-facing position. She still likes the semi-reclined position best (now 2.5 yrs), but we went fwd facing around 18 months. The most important thing is that your child is secure in the seat/straps and there is not too much strain on the neck/back. If not, maybe try proping her head up on a pillow when she is in the pram on her back, until she is a few wks older? You could also try a different toy arch or some soft books to keep up her interest. xx
Our daughter didn't like the pram part of the Cameleon much, I'd end up carrying her in the ling and pushing an empty pram! We moved her into the buggy part at anout 4 months even though she was a small baby. Kept it seat unit semi reclined and forward facing. We put a sheepskin buggy liner in which made it cosy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The main problem Post Offices have, IMO, is they are generally a sub optimal experience and don't really deliver services in the way people  want or need these days. I always dread having to use one as you know it will be time consuming and annoying. 
    • If you want to look for blame, look at McKinsey's. It was their model of separating cost and profit centres which started the restructuring of the Post Office - once BT was fully separated off - into Lines of Business - Parcels; Mail Delivery and Retail outlets (set aside the whole Giro Bank nonsense). Once you separate out these lines of business and make them 'stand-alone' you immediately make them vulnerable to sell off and additionally, by separating the 'businesses' make each stand or fall on their own, without cross subsidy. The Post Office took on banking and some government outsourced activity - selling licences and passports etc. as  additional revenue streams to cross subsidize the postal services, and to offer an incentive to outsourced sub post offices. As a single 'comms' delivery business the Post Office (which included the telcom business) made financial sense. Start separating elements off and it doesn't. Getting rid of 'non profitable' activity makes sense in a purely commercial environment, but not in one which is also about overall national benefit - where having an affordable and effective communications (in its largest sense) business is to the national benefit. Of course, the fact the the Government treated the highly profitable telecoms business as a cash cow (BT had a negative PSBR - public sector borrowing requirement - which meant far from the public purse funding investment in infrastructure BT had to lend the government money every year from it's operating surplus) meant that services were terrible and the improvement following privatisation was simply the effect of BT now being able to invest in infrastructure - which is why (partly) its service quality soared in the years following privatisation. I was working for BT through this period and saw what was happening there.
    • But didn't that separation begin with New Labour and Peter Mandelson?
    • I am not disputing that the Post Office remains publicly owned. But the Lib Dems’ decision to separate and privatise Royal Mail has fatally undermined the PO.  It is within the power of the Labour government to save what is left of the PO and the service it provides to the community, if they care enough; I suspect they do not.  However, the appalling postal service is a constant reminder of the Lib Dems’ duplicity on this matter. It is actions taken under the Lib Dem / Conservative coalition that have brought us to this point.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...