Forward-facing Restraint Research Articles

The effects of postural support padding modifications to child restraints for children with disability on crash protection

Objective Many children with physical disabilities need additional postural support when sitting and supplementary padding is used on standards approved child restraints to achieve this when traveling in a motor vehicle. However, the effect of this padding on crash protection for a child is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the effect of additional padding for postural support on crash protection for child occupants in forward facing child restraints. Methods Forty frontal sled tests at 49 km/h were conducted to compare Q1 anthropometric test device (ATD) responses in a forward-facing restraint, with and without additional padding in locations to increase recline of the restraint, and/or support the head, trunk and pelvis. Three padding materials were tested: cloth toweling, soft foam, and expanded polystyrene (EPS). The influence of padding on head excursion, peak 3 ms head acceleration, HIC15, peak 3 ms chest acceleration and chest deflection were analyzed. Results The influence of padding varied depending on the location of use. Padding used under the restraint to increase the recline angle increased head injury metrics. Toweling in multiple locations which included behind the head increased head excursion and chest injury metrics. There was minimal effect on injury risk measures with additional padding to support the sides of the head or the pelvis position. Rigid EPS foam, as recommended in Australian standards and guidelines, had minimal effect on injury metrics when used inside the restraint, as did tightly rolled or folded toweling secured to the restraint at single locations around the body of the child. Conclusions This study does not support the use of postural support padding to increase recline of a forward-facing restraint or padding behind the head. Recommendations in published standards and guidelines to not use foam that is spongy, soft or easily compressed, with preference for secured firm foam or short-term use of tightly rolled or folded toweling under the child restraint cover is supported. This study also highlights the importance of considering the whole context of child occupant protection when using additional padding, particularly the change in the child’s seated position when adding padding in relation to the standard safety features of the restraint.

Comparative performance of rearward and forward-facing child restraint systems with common use errors: Effect on crash injury risk for a 1-year-old occupant

Objective To compare how errors in child restraint use influence crash injury risk in rearward and forward-facing restraints for a 1-year old occupant. Methods Three convertible child restraint systems (CRS) were subjected to frontal dynamic sled tests at 56 km/h in rearward-facing and forward-facing modes in a correct use (baseline) condition and in five incorrect use conditions: loose securing belt, loose harness, partial harness use, top tether slack, and three minor errors. Excursion, head, and chest 3 ms resultant acceleration, HIC15, and neck forces and moments of a Q1 anthropomorphic test device (ATD) seated in the restraints were measured. The effect of incorrect use on each outcome and restraint type was analyzed. Results The influence of errors varied across different outcome variables, the three restraints tested and orientation modes. Excursion increased in four of five incorrect use conditions in both rearward and forward-facing orientations. A very loose harness increased four of five outcome variables in at least one forward-facing restraint, whereas only excursion was increased when rearward-facing. Overall, there tended to be a more negative effect of incorrect use (demonstrated through increases in outcome variables compared to the baseline) in the forward-facing orientation. Conclusions Overall, errors in use tended to have a larger negative impact on forward-facing restraints than rearward-facing restraints. Given the widespread nature of errors in use, this adds further weight to arguments to keep children rearward-facing to 12 months of age and older. The results also highlight a variation in response to errors across differently designed restraints, suggesting the influence of errors may be minimized by restraint design that is more resistant to errors.

Dynamic frontal crash performance of old and used child restraint systems

Objective To examine the effect of age on the dynamic performance of child restraint systems in frontal crashes. Methods A sample of used (3-269 months from manufacture) and newly purchased child restraints were subjected to frontal crash simulations of more than 56 km/h and peak deceleration approximately 33 g on a deceleration sled. Restraints were monitored for evidence of damage before and after each impact. Anthropometric test device (ATD) head and chest responses and peak head excursions were recorded for rearward facing restraints using the Q1 ATD and for forward facing restraints and booster seats using the Q6 ATD. The influence of restraint age on peak 3 ms head acceleration, HIC15, head excursion, peak 3 ms chest acceleration and restraint damage were analyzed. Results In all impacts, the ATD remained within the restraint and secured to the test bench demonstrating the crash protection offered by the old and used restraints. There was no apparent relationship between ATD responses and restraint age for any restraint type. Older forward facing restraint systems had a very modest increase in forward head excursion (R2 = 0.59, p = 0.001) of 0.27 mm for each month of age (95% CI, 0.13 mm − 0.42 mm). This equates to a 0.7% increase in the minimum measured excursion per year of restraint age. There was also a small increased likelihood of critical damage to the restraints in the simulated crashes per month of restraint age (OR 1.031, 95% CI 1.010-1.069). Conclusions Overall, degradation in restraint dynamic performance in older restraints, including some that are much older than the currently recommended 10-year lifetime, is minimal. However newer restraints may provide better protection due to marginal improvements in restraint design over time. Furthermore, the results of this study confirm previous recommendations that restraints should not be re-used after crash involvement.

Effects of child restraint misuse on dynamic performance

Objective: Estimates of child restraint misuse rates in the United States range from 49% to 95%, but not all misuse modes have similar consequences in terms of restraint effectiveness. A series of laboratory sled tests was conducted to determine the effects of common misuses and combinations of misuses, including loose harness, loose installation, incorrect installation angle, incorrect belt path, loose/no tether, and incorrect harness clip usage.Methods: Three commercial convertible child restraint models were loaded with the Hybrid III 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) and secured by either LATCH or seat belt on a modified FMVSS No. 213 bench. Tests were conducted in forward-facing (FF) and rear-facing (RF) modes. The response variables included ATD accelerations, excursions, and restraint kinematics. Belt/LATCH loads, tether loads, ATD kinematics, and restraint structural response data were also documented. A fractional factorial test design on 8 factors was used to define an initial series of 32 tests. The first series also included 4 tests of correct CRS, 2 forward facing and 2 rearward facing. The analysis of those data determined the selection of conditions for the remaining 20 tests to focus on factors and interactions of high interest and significance.Results: In the RF condition, misrouting the LATCH belt or seat belt through the incorrect belt path was the only misuse that significantly affected outcomes of interest and was associated with high levels of undesirable CRS rotation. In FF tests, loose installation and tether misuse had large adverse effects on 3 of 4 key response variables.Conclusion: The study provides strong evidence for prioritizing tight restraint installation and proper tether use for FF restraints. In particular, use of the tether helped offset the adverse effects of loose installation or loose harness. Because the results show that performance of a RF child restraint system (CRS) installation is less affected by user error, they also provide support for extended RF restraint use. In addition, packaging convertible child restraints with the LATCH belt routed through the RF belt path could help prevent the most consequential RF CRS misuse.

Assessing tether anchor labeling and usability in pickup trucks

ABSTRACTObjective: The objective of this study was to investigate vehicle factors associated with child restraint tether use and misuse in pickup trucks and evaluate 4 labeling interventions designed to educate consumers on proper tether use.Methods: Volunteer testing was performed with 24 subjects and 4 different pickup trucks. Each subject performed 8 child restraint installations among the 4 pickups using 2 forward-facing restraints: a Britax Marathon G4.1 and an Evenflo Triumph. Vehicles were selected to represent 4 different implementations of tether anchors among pickups: plastic loop routers (Chevrolet Silverado), webbing routers (Ram), back wall anchors (Nissan Frontier), and webbing routers plus metal anchors (Toyota Tundra). Interventions included a diagram label, Quick Response (QR) Code linked to video instruction, coordinating text label, and contrasting text tag.Results: Subjects used the child restraint tether in 93% of trials. However, tether use was completely correct in only 9% of trials. An installation was considered functional if the subject attached the tether to a tether anchor and had a tight installation (ignoring routing and head restraint position); 28% of subjects achieved a functional installation. The most common installation error was attaching the tether hook to the anchor/router directly behind the child restraint (near the top of the seatback) rather than placing the tether through the router and attaching it to the anchor in the adjacent seating position. The Nissan Frontier, with the anchor located on the back wall of the cab, had the highest rate of correct installations but also had the highest rate of attaching the tether to components other than the tether anchor (seat adjustor, child restraint storage hook, around head restraint). None of the labeling interventions had a significant effect on correct installation; not a single subject scanned the QR Code to access the video instruction. Subjects with the most successful installations spent extensive time reviewing the vehicle manuals.Conclusion: Current implementations of tether anchors among pickup trucks are not intuitive for child restraint installations, and alternate designs should be explored. Several different labeling interventions were ineffective at achieving correct tether use in pickup trucks.

Child Car Safety: A Parental Survey at a Tertiary Care Emergency Treatment Center in Greece.

This study aimed to assess parental behavior in terms of child restraint systems (CRS) use under emergency conditions while driving to the hospital's outpatient settings as well as their routine child car safety (CCS) practices. A cross-sectional survey of parents/caregivers transporting children 13 years or younger was conducted at the Emergency Treatment Center of a pediatric tertiary care center in Athens, Greece. Participants completed a questionnaire inquiring about the possession of CRS, and type and use of appropriate CRS while driving to the Emergency Treatment Center and under routine conditions. In addition, presence and type of parental education with regard to CCS and the use of seat belts among drivers were assessed. Of 444 participants, 51.4% children were carried restrained, although 48.6% were fastened in an improper seat for their age, in contrast with 23.7% who travel unrestrained on a daily basis. Forward-facing restraint seats were most popular, with 53.9% total use even in children younger than 2 years or older than 4 years, whereas booster seats (9.4%) and rear-facing restraint seats (18.2%) were inappropriately disfavored. Children younger than 4 years, male drivers, and drivers who had received information on CCS had higher odds of using CRS. The proportion of those had never been provided any CCS education was 38.5%. Child restraint systems use was inappropriately low under routine conditions and declined even further under emergency circumstances. Most children younger than 2 years and older than 4 years traveled inappropriately restrained in a forward-facing restraint seat. Parents should be more intensively educated on child car safety seat and the proper CRS use.

Vehicle characteristics associated with LATCH use and correct use in real-world child restraint installations

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to determine if vehicle features associated with LATCH ease-of-use in laboratory studies with volunteers predict LATCH use and misuse in real-world child restraint installations. MethodVehicle characteristics were extracted from prior surveys of more than 100 top-selling 2010–13 vehicles. Use and correct use of LATCH was determined from records of more than 14,000 child restraint installations in these vehicles that were inspected by child passenger safety technicians at Safe Kids car seat checkup events during 2010–12. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between vehicle features and use and correct use of lower anchors and top tethers, controlling for other relevant installation features. ResultsLower anchors were more likely to be used and correctly used when the clearance angle around them was greater than 54°, the force required to attach them to the lower anchors was less than 178N, and their depth within the seat bight was less than 4cm. Restraints were more likely to be attached correctly when installed with the lower anchors than with the seat belt. After controlling for lower anchor use and other installation features, the likelihood of tether use and correct use in installations of forward-facing restraints was significantly higher when there was no hardware present that could potentially be confused with the tether anchor or when the tether anchor was located on the rear deck, which is typical in sedans. ConclusionsThere is converging evidence from laboratory studies with volunteers and real-world child restraint installations that vehicle features are associated with correct LATCH use. Practical applicationsVehicle designs that improve the ease of installing child restraints with LATCH could improve LATCH use rates and reduce child restraint misuse.

Observed use of tethers in forward-facing child restraint systems

BackgroundUse of top tethers with forward-facing child restraints is a simple way for parents to keep their children safer when travelling in passenger vehicles, but tether use remains low.ObjectivesTo obtain...

The Characteristics of Incorrect Restraint Use Among Children Traveling in Cars in New South Wales, Australia

Objective: This study aims to provide population estimates of incorrect restraint use among children aged 0–12 traveling in cars in New South Wales (NSW) and describe the errors occurring in different restraint types. Methods: Observations of randomly selected children and restraints were conducted in situ by trained researchers at sites statewide. Observation sites were randomly selected using a multistage stratified sample plan. Restraint use errors were recorded and analyzed by severity of error and restraint type using complex survey analysis techniques. Results: One in two children was incorrectly restrained, and 38 percent in a serious manner. Multiple errors were common (31% of children). Both installation and “securing” errors were common, with installation errors more common in convertible restraints (rearward-facing/forward-facing restraints and forward-facing restraints/booster seats) than single-mode restraints (odds ratio [OR] 4.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7–10.8). Multiple errors were more common in convertible restraints (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.9–7.0). The most frequently observed errors were excessive seat belt slack (>25 mm), incorrect belt routing, nonengagement of the seat belt buckle, very loose harness (>25 mm slack), harness off the shoulder, nonuse of belt guides, sash belt worn under the arm, and very twisted harnesses and belts (>2 twists). For rearward- and forward-facing restraints the highest priorities in terms of frequency and degradation in crash protection are errors related to harness use. For booster seat users the most important are those related to correct seat belt and belt guide use. For seat belt users, errors related to correct positioning of the sash belt are key. Conclusions: The results indicate that many errors are currently occurring in the way children are using restraints, as well as problems associated with the way child restraint systems are installed in vehicles. Incorrect use is particularly problematic in convertible restraints (rearward-facing/forward-facing restraints and forward-facing restraints/booster seats). Different priorities, in terms of the frequency and potential degradation in crash protection due to incorrect use for different restraint types, exist and these are important for those designing countermeasures to this problem.

Improved Protection for Children in Forward-Facing Restraints During Side Impacts

Objective:This study aims to determine the potential for improved child occupant protection in side impacts that can be obtained using rigid and semi-rigid anchorage systems and the addition of energy-absorbing padding in the side structures of child restraints. Methods:This study uses a comprehensive set of simulated side impacts to evaluate the potential for improved side impact protection in forward-facing child restraints. Factors investigated included methods of anchoring the restraint to the vehicle, energy-absorbing materials in the side structure of restraints, and design features of the restraints such as side wing geometry and seat belt routing. Results:The results show clearly that completely rigid lower attachment of restraints offers the potential for great reductions in head injury risk, which anchorage systems employing a combination of a rigid anchorage bar and webbing attached to a child restraint cannot match. The addition of energy absorbing material in the side structure of restraint systems is effective when the head is fully contained within an adequately designed side wing structure. For restraints anchored by seat belts and loop style semi rigid anchorage straps, belt routing has the potential to significantly affect occupant head excursion. Conclusions: The results suggest that current child restraint standards and consumer testing protocols do not adequately encourage best practice design of child restraints for side impact protection.