State and city laws governing the use of child restraint systems in rideshare vehicles and taxicabs: requirements and responsibility.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and critique state and local policies related to child passenger safety in for-hire motor vehicles including ridesharing and taxis. METHODS: We used standard legal research methods to collect policies governing the use of child restraint systems (CRS) in rideshare and taxi vehicles for all 50 states and the 50 largest cities in the USA. We abstracted the collected policies to determine whether the policy applies to specific vehicles, requires specific safety restraints in those vehicles, lists specific requirements for use of those safety restraints, seeks to enhance compliance and punishes noncompliance. RESULTS: All 50 states have policies that require the use of CRS for children under a certain age, weight or height. Seven states exempt rideshare vehicles and 28 states exempt taxis from their CRS requirements. Twelve cities have relevant policies with eight requiring CRS in rideshare vehicles, but not taxis, and two cities requiring CRS use in both rideshare vehicles and taxis. CONCLUSION: Most states require CRS use in rideshare vehicles, but not as many require CRS use in taxis. Though states describe penalties for drivers who fail to comply with CRS requirements, these penalties do not actually facilitate the use of CRS in rideshare or taxis. Furthermore, there is ambiguity in the laws about who is responsible for the provision and installation of the restraints. To prevent serious or fatal injuries in children, policy-makers should adopt policies that require, incentivise and facilitate the use of CRS in rideshare vehicles and taxis.

So much nuance: A qualitative analysis of parental perspectives on child passenger safety.

OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers and facilitators to optimal child restraint system (CRS) use for diverse parents of newborn infants and to obtain input from parents on the use of technology-assisted remote car seat checks as tools for promoting optimal CRS use. METHODS: Parents were recruited using purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted with English- or Spanish-speaking parents with a full term newborn and regular access to a car. Interviews were conducted by phone, and recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was reached. Data were organized for analysis using Atlas.ti, and codes grouped by theme using constant comparison. RESULTS: 30 parents were enrolled. Barriers and facilitators to optimal CRS use were classified into three themes, as were thoughts on the pros and cons regarding remote car seat checks. Themes on barriers and facilitators included motor vehicle and CRS features (such as age and size of the motor vehicle and presence of the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children LATCH system), resources (availability, accessibility, and accuracy of resources), and parental factors (parental emotions and characteristics). Themes related to pros and cons of remote car seat checks included the ability (and challenge) of remote car seat checks to identify and correct errors, the potential use of remote car seat checks in certain situations (such as CRS transitions and periods of growth), and convenience of remote car seat checks (including increased availability and ease of access). Subthemes with further detail were arranged within each theme identified. CONCLUSION: From a parent perspective, there are several identified barriers and facilitators of optimal CRS use. Although car seat checks were identified as a resource, in-person accessibility was an issue, and there were mixed opinions on technology-assisted remote car seat checks. These results provide a foundation for additional study on targeted interventions, including remote interventions for which there is an increased need due to the COVID-19 pandemic.