Optimizing frontal impact occupant protection systems for passengers seated in wheelchairs.

OBJECTIVE: The advent of automated vehicles (AVs) provides an opportunity to design integrated wheelchair seating stations that provide an equivalent level of safety for occupants using wheelchairs as those using vehicle seating. This study designed a frontal occupant protection system for an integrated second-row wheelchair seating station that includes optimized airbags and seatbelt systems. METHODS: MADYMO models were used to optimize belt geometry for a midsized male ATD seated in a surrogate wheelchair fixture, with and without inclusion of a Self Conforming Rearseat Air Bag (SCaRAB). Sled tests were performed to confirm the benefits of airbag use and optimized belt geometry. Additional modeling was performed with commercial manual and power wheelchairs, to identify the effects of wheelchair design and forward clear space on occupant kinematics and injury measures. Additional sled tests were performed with manual and power wheelchairs to demonstrate effectiveness of the restraint system with commercial products. RESULTS: Simulations and tests both showed improved kinematics using an optimized seatbelt system geometry compared to a commonly used suboptimal D-ring location that places the shoulder belt at a more outboard location. Use of the SCaRAB helped compensate for suboptimal geometry. Results include specific recommendations for belt geometry relative to the wheelchair seating station and airbag parameters suitable for protecting occupants seated in wheelchairs. Restraint systems initially optimized using the surrogate wheelchair also performed well with the two commercial wheelchairs. The clear space required for maneuvering a wheelchair will likely prevent injurious head contact in frontal crashes. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to design a frontal optimal occupant protection system for an integrated second-row wheelchair seating station, demonstrating that it should be feasible once integrated wheelchair seating stations are included in AVs.

Child occupant safety in unconventional seating for vehicles with automated driving systems.

The objective of this study was to use computational models to study how unconventional seating positions and orientations in vehicles with Automated Driving System (ADS) may affect occupant response metrics of children with various restraint conditions. A literature review was first conducted to frame a simulation plan, including selections of surrogate ADS-equipped vehicles, potential seating arrangements, impact scenarios, anthropomorphic test device (ATD) models, and child restraint system (CRS) models that are relevant to the selected ATD models. Due to the lack of impact tests with child ATDs and CRS in farside, oblique, and rear impacts, 17 sled tests were conducted with CRS harness-restrained ATDs and vehicle belt-restrained ATDs in frontal, farside, oblique, and rear impact conditions. The sled tests were then used to validate a set of MADYMO (MAthematical DYnamic MOdels) v7.7 models. A total of 550 simulations were then conducted with four child ATDs and various CRS conditions across a range of conventional and unconventional seating locations and orientations under five impact directions. We did not find major safety concerns with ATDs restrained by harnessed CRSs based on the nature of ATD contacts. Compared with frontal and rear impacts, CRSs may rotate laterally in farside and oblique impacts, which could result in higher head and chest injury measures than frontal due to inertial loading to the CRS, and the larger lateral rotation of the CRS may lead to a contact between the CRS and vehicle interior. The major safety concern for vehicle belt-restrained ATDs (with and without booster) is that they have the potential to contact the seat next to them or the instrument panel behind them in a farside or oblique impact. Unconventional seating does not necessarily create additional safety concerns beyond what we know with the conventional seating. However, due to the orientation of the unconventional seats, the occupants on those seats may be involved in a higher percentage of oblique and rear-oblique impacts relative to their seating orientations than conventional seats, which may be considered in the future safety design process. This is the first study using different child ATDs and CRSs to investigate child occupant responses in a wide range of impact directions and seating orientations. Results from the sled tests and simulations provide a better understanding of child occupant responses in those crash conditions, but also identified several limitations of using frontal ATDs in other crash directions.

Improving protection system for wheelchair-seated occupants in vehicle side impacts.

Objective: Previous research on occupant protection systems for wheelchair-seated occupants focused on frontal impacts, while similar studies on side impacts are very limited. The objective of this study was to identify the major injury concerns for wheelchair-seated occupants in side impacts and develop restraint systems to mitigate such injury concerns.Methods: Seven sled tests in side impact conditions were first conducted at 30 km/h with a 24 g peak deceleration. An ES2-RE ATD and surrogate wheelchair base (SWCB) were used in all tests, which varied armrest design, width of the SWCB, and wheelchair tiedown conditions. These sled tests set up the baseline performance and provided validation data for computational models. A set of validated MADYMO models were then used to investigate the safety concerns and potential restraint solutions for wheelchair-seated occupants in side impacts. Simulations covered nearside and farside impacts, inboard or outboard D-ring locations, varied wheelchair locations relative to the side door, varied seatbelt anchorage locations, and a few Center Airbag To Contain Humans (CATCH) designs. Finally, another set of sled tests were conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of varied CATCH designs for protecting wheelchair-seated occupants in farside impacts.Results: Simulations suggested that wheelchair-seated occupants might fall from the wheelchair in farside impacts, while in nearside impacts the seatbelt and curtain airbag can provide reasonable protection to occupants using wheelchairs. The CATCH design, a curtain airbag mounted to the roof centerline with tethers attached outboard of the wheelchair station, was effective at preventing the ATD from falling off the wheelchair. Results from sled tests to iterate CATCH parameters confirmed that the concept was effective at retaining occupants seated in wheelchairs under farside impact loading.Conclusions: This study is the first to investigate wheelchair-seated occupant protection in both nearside and farside impacts. The injury concerns identified in farside impacts and the CATCH design can potentially help improve the protection of wheelchair-seated occupants in side impacts in the future. The CATCH design has potential to improve farside protection for occupants in traditional seating.

A Literature Review of Wheelchair Transportation Safety Relevant to Automated Vehicles.

This literature review summarizes wheelchair transportation safety, focusing on areas pertinent to designing automated vehicles (AVs) so they can accommodate people who remain seated in their wheelchairs for travel. In these situations, it is necessary to secure the wheelchair to the vehicle and provide occupant protection with a Wheelchair Tiedown and Occupant Restraint System (WTORS). For this population to use AVs, a WTORS must be crashworthy for use in smaller vehicles, able to be used independently, and adaptable for a wide range of wheelchair types. Currently available WTORS do not have these characteristics, but a universal docking interface geometry and prototype automatic seatbelt donning systems have been developed. In the absence of government regulations that address this situation, RESNA and ISO have developed voluntary industry standards to define design and performance criteria to achieve occupant protection levels for wheelchair-seated passengers that are similar to those provided by conventional vehicle seats.

Dynamic metrics to differentiate booster performance.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to explore candidate booster performance metrics that may have the potential to identify less effective booster systems, because current FMVSS No. 213 booster performance requirements can be met without a booster. METHODS: To provide a more realistic test environment, dynamic testing was performed using a surrogate seat belt retractor on the most recent preliminary design update proposed for the FMVSS No. 213 seat assembly. Given that field data show that belt-positioning boosters are effective at reducing injury risk, potential testing measures were assessed relative to data collected for the no-booster condition. Eleven booster products were evaluated, as well as the no-booster condition, with 6 tests performed using the Hybrid III 10-year-old and 33 tests run with the Hybrid III 6-year-old. RESULTS: Possible metrics associated with good anthropomorphic test device (ATD) kinematics (no submarining or rollout) were the difference between knee and head excursion, maximum torso angle, lumbar spine Moment Z, and lumbar spine Force Y. CONCLUSIONS: When testing boosters under more realistic dynamic conditions, the proposed metrics would allow better discernment of less effective boosters, because they differentiate performance relative to the no-booster condition.

Should airbags be deactivated for wheelchair-seated drivers?

OBJECTIVE: Field data have shown significant benefit from driver airbag for occupant protection in frontal crashes. However, vehicle modifiers almost always permanently deactivate airbags for wheelchair-seated drivers. The objective of this study was to conduct sled tests and computational simulations to answer whether driver airbags should be deactivated for drivers seated in wheelchairs. METHODS: Five sled tests were conducted under a 48-kph 20-g frontal crash pulse all with driver airbag. Seat-belt fit (good, poor, and unbelted), airbag deployment time (proper and late), and occupant size (midsize male and small female HIII ATDs) were varied in the tests. The 2006 Chrysler Town-and-Country minivan was selected as the nominal vehicle environment, and a surrogate wheelchair with a docking securement system was used for all sled tests. ATD injury measures for the head, neck, chest, and lower extremities were recorded in each test, and were used for validating a set of MADYMO models. Parametric studies with a total of 28 MADYMO simulations were then conducted to investigate the airbag effects on occupant injury risks with varied occupant size, belt fit, and impact angle (0, 15, and 30 deg). RESULTS: The sled tests showed potential safety concerns for wheelchair-seated drivers with a poor belt fit or without a belt. Specifically, the unbelted midsize male ATD sustained high femur forces and the small female ATD with poor belt fit sustained high chest deflections. The parametric simulations showed that airbag generally improved the protection for wheelchair-seated drivers. It is especially useful for unbelted wheelchair-seated drivers, and is also helpful for reducing the head and neck injury risks regardless of the belt condition, occupant size, and impact angle. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study using sled tests and computational simulations to investigate the effects of airbag deployment on injury risks of wheelchair-seated drivers. Overall, the results showed little basis for concern that the energy of deploying a driver airbag in today's vehicles will cause serious-to-fatal injuries to drivers seated in wheelchairs. The results of this study therefore support the idea that driver airbags generally offer tangible safety benefits for a wide range of wheelchair-seated drivers in frontal crashes.

Child Posture and Belt Fit in a Range of Booster Configurations.

Belt positioning boosters reduce injury risk for child occupants compared with seat belts alone. While boosters shorten the effective seat length (and thus reduce slouching), "boosting" the child relative to the vehicle interior components also achieves additional safety benefits. First, the increase of the lap belt angle usually improves belt fit across the pelvis and reduces the risk of the occupant slipping ("submarining") under the belt. Second, the torso belt is re-centered over the bony landmarks of the shoulder for more effective/secure restraint. Third, the child's head is relocated in a range better protected by side airbags. The objective of this research was to quantify differences in posture and belt fit across a range of booster designs that provide different levels of boosting. Posture and belt fit were measured in 25 child volunteers aged four to 12. Children were measured in three laboratory seating conditions selected to provide a range of cushion lengths and belt geometries. Six different boosters, as well as a no-booster condition, were evaluated. The low height boosters produced postures that were more slouched, with the hips further forward than in other more typical boosters. Lap belt fit in the low height boosters was not meaningfully different from the other boosters. Shoulder belt fit produced by the lowest height booster was similar to the no-booster condition. Belt positioning boosters that boost the child less than 70 mm produced postures similar to the no-booster condition. While lap belt guides on these products can produce a similar static lap belt fit, they may not provide adequate dynamic performance and do not achieve the other benefits that come with raising the child to a more advantageous location relative to interior components and belts.

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.

Characterizing the child passenger safety workforce in Michigan: A statewide survey in 2015.

Objective: In this study, we assessed the number of child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs) in Michigan over 4 years and characterized the CPST workforce in 2015 to identify factors associated with high productivity and longevity in the field. Methods: We determined the number of CPSTs and those newly certified using lists from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (OHSP) from 2012 to 2015. We conducted a statewide survey of Michigan CPSTs in October 2015. Analyses were conducted in 2016. The survey assessed demographic characteristics, reasons to enter the field and maintain certification, and motivations to conduct seat checks. We used CPST-reported time devoted to seat checks and average number of seats checked per month to create a composite "activity level" variable. We examined activity levels across several characteristics. Results: The number of CPSTs ranged from 941 to 980 over the study period, with approximately 200 new certifications annually. In 2015, surveys were started by 496 of 962 eligible CPSTs and 427 submitted complete responses. CPST-instructors had a higher response rate than CPSTs in general (89 vs. 49%, P < .0001). The majority of respondents were women (71%) and self-identified as white (88%). More than one third were 35-44 years old. Just 7% were comfortable checking seats using a language other than English. "Personal reasons" were most often cited motivation for becoming a CPST and maintaining certification. Natural fit/job enhancement were more common reasons to maintain certification than become a CPST. Time and distance had the greatest influence on seat check participation. Perceived need, appointments vs. drop-in, and employer factors were very influential for 10-15% of CPSTs. Few CPSTs considered free food and payments/giveaways very influential. About 40% of respondents were considered high-activity (>24 seats checked/year), one third medium-activity (5 to 24 seats checked/year), and one quarter low-activity (<5 seats checked/year). High-activity CPSTs most commonly reported both being paid and volunteering their time to check seats, worked with a Safe Kids coalition, worked in law enforcement or social services, and had recertified at least once. Motivation to participate in seat checks did not vary with activity level. Conclusions: Understanding the demographic characteristics and motivations of CPSTs can help Michigan OHSP recruit and retain a workforce dedicated to increasing the safety of child passengers. Agencies hosting seat checks can use these results to align the strategies they employ to incentivize CPSTs to serve in their communities with the factors that have the greatest influence on CPST participation.

An assessment of child passenger safety levels of service in Michigan.

Objective: The purpose of this article was to assess the match between child passenger safety resources (child passenger safety technicians [CPSTs], car seat checks, and child restraint system [CRS] distribution programs) and the child population in Michigan by utilizing geographic information systems approaches and to analyze the impact of Michigan's CPSTs on child passenger safety behaviors on departure from a seat check. Methods: Data were collected from administrative sources and a survey of CPSTs to determine the number and location of child passenger safety resources and children in Michigan. The main analyses used data from 2014. The child population ≤4 years old per county and per traffic safety region was determined from census data. CPST and car seat check locations were determined from a list from the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning (Mi-OHSP) and a survey of CPSTs who coordinate seat checks. Summary sheets from Mi-OHSP served as the data source for CRSs distributed through their occupant protection program. Data from child passenger safety checklists completed with seat checks were obtained from Safe Kids Michigan. Addresses were geocoded using Google Maps Geocoding API and then mapped at the county level using ArcGIS Desktop 10.3.1. Descriptive statistics were calculated and levels of service were determined at the county and regional levels. Results: In 2014, there were 570,929 children ≤4 years old in Michigan and 979 CPSTs who worked at 209 known seat check locations. An average of 6,854 seats was checked per year through Safe Kids Michigan Coalitions. All but 3 regions met an intermediate service level for seat check locations by offering one or more per 5,000 children ≤4 years old. There was at least one CPST in 80 of 83 counties (median 5; interquartile range, 2, 10.5). Assuming that an average Michigan CPST provides 10 h of service each year, all but 2 regions reached an intermediate service level of at least one technician hour per 90 children ≤4 years old. Fewer regions reached a basic level of service for the number of seat checks. Almost half (49.5%) of Safe Kids Michigan seat checks resulted in a change in child passenger safety behaviors. Conclusions: Child passenger safety resources in Michigan are not evenly distributed yet most regions and counties meet intermediate levels of service. Reallocating resources to areas that are providing basic levels of service could help reduce disparities in child passenger safety behaviors.

Factors Affecting Child Injury Risk in Motor-Vehicle Crashes.

Current recommendations for restraining child occupants are based on biomechanical testing and data from national and international field studies primarily conducted prior to 2011. We hypothesized that analysis to identify factors associated with pediatric injury in motor-vehicle crashes using a national database of more recent police-reported crashes in the United States involving children under age 13 where type of child restraint system (CRS) is recorded would support previous recommendations. Weighted data were extracted from the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES) for crash years 2010 to 2015. Injury outcomes were grouped as CO (possible and no injury) or KAB (killed, incapacitating injury, nonincapacitating injury). Restraint was characterized as optimal, suboptimal, or unrestrained based on current best practice recommendations. Analysis used survey methods to identify factors associated with injury. Factors with significant effect on pediatric injury risk include restraint type, child age, driver injury, driver alcohol use, seating position, and crash direction. Compared to children using optimal restraint, unrestrained children have 4.9 (13-year-old) to 5.6 (< 1-year-old) times higher odds of injury, while suboptimally restrained children have 1.1 (13-year-old) to 1.9 (< 1-year-old) times higher odds of injury. As indicated by the differences in odds ratios, effects of restraint type attenuate with age. Results support current best practice recommendations to use each stage of child restraint (rear-facing CRS, forward-facing harnessed CRS, belt-positioning booster seat, lap and shoulder belt) as long as possible before switching to the next step.

Comparing motor-vehicle crash risk of EU and US vehicles.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the hypotheses that passenger vehicles meeting European Union (EU) safety standards have similar crashworthiness to United States (US) -regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and vice versa. METHODS: The first step involved identifying appropriate databases of US and EU crashes that include in-depth crash information, such as estimation of crash severity using Delta-V and injury outcome based on medical records. The next step was to harmonize variable definitions and sampling criteria so that the EU data could be combined and compared to the US data using the same or equivalent parameters. Logistic regression models of the risk of a Maximum injury according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale of 3 or greater, or fatality (MAIS3+F) in EU-regulated and US-regulated vehicles were constructed. The injury risk predictions of the EU model and the US model were each applied to both the US and EU standard crash populations. Frontal, near-side, and far-side crashes were analyzed together (termed "front/side crashes") and a separate model was developed for rollover crashes. RESULTS: For the front/side model applied to the US standard population, the mean estimated risk for the US-vehicle model is 0.035 (sd = 0.012), and the mean estimated risk for the EU-vehicle model is 0.023 (sd = 0.016). When applied to the EU front/side population, the US model predicted a 0.065 risk (sd = 0.027), and the EU model predicted a 0.052 risk (sd = 0.025). For the rollover model applied to the US standard population, the US model predicted a risk of 0.071 (sd = 0.024), and the EU model predicted 0.128 risk (sd = 0.057). When applied to the EU rollover standard population, the US model predicted a 0.067 risk (sd = 0.024), and the EU model predicted 0.103 risk (sd = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: The results based on these methods indicate that EU vehicles most likely have a lower risk of MAIS3+F injury in front/side impacts, while US vehicles most likely have a lower risk of MAIS3+F injury in llroovers. These results should be interpreted with an understanding of the uncertainty of the estimates, the study limitations, and our recommendations for further study detailed in the report.

Assessing tether anchor labeling and usability in pickup trucks.

OBJECTIVE: 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.

Predictors of restraint use among child occupants.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify factors that predict restraint use and optimal restraint use among children aged 0 to 13 years. METHODS: The data set is a national sample of police-reported crashes for years 2010-2014 in which type of child restraint is recorded. The data set was supplemented with demographic census data linked by driver ZIP code, as well as a score for the state child restraint law during the year of the crash relative to best practice recommendations for protecting child occupants. Analysis used linear regression techniques. RESULTS: The main predictor of unrestrained child occupants was the presence of an unrestrained driver. Among restrained children, children had 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.27, 2.17) times higher odds of using the recommended type of restraint system if the state law at the time of the crash included requirements based on best practice recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Children are more likely to ride in the recommended type of child restraint when their state's child restraint law includes wording that follows best practice recommendations for child occupant protection. However, state child restraint law requirements do not influence when caregivers fail to use an occupant restraint for their child passengers.

Does unbelted safety requirement affect protection for belted occupants?

OBJECTIVE: Federal regulations in the United States require vehicles to meet occupant performance requirements with unbelted test dummies. Removing the test requirements with unbelted occupants might encourage the deployment of seat belt interlocks and allow restraint optimization to focus on belted occupants. The objective of this study is to compare the performance of restraint systems optimized for belted-only occupants with those optimized for both belted and unbelted occupants using computer simulations and field crash data analyses. METHODS: In this study, 2 validated finite element (FE) vehicle/occupant models (a midsize sedan and a midsize SUV) were selected. Restraint design optimizations under standardized crash conditions (U.S.-NCAP and FMVSS 208) with and without unbelted requirements were conducted using Hybrid III (HIII) small female and midsize male anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) in both vehicles on both driver and right front passenger positions. A total of 10 to 12 design parameters were varied in each optimization using a combination of response surface method (RSM) and genetic algorithm. To evaluate the field performance of restraints optimized with and without unbelted requirements, 55 frontal crash conditions covering a greater variety of crash types than those in the standardized crashes were selected. A total of 1,760 FE simulations were conducted for the field performance evaluation. Frontal crashes in the NASS-CDS database from 2002 to 2012 were used to develop injury risk curves and to provide the baseline performance of current restraint system and estimate the injury risk change by removing the unbelted requirement. RESULTS: Unbelted requirements do not affect the optimal seat belt and airbag design parameters in 3 out of 4 vehicle/occupant position conditions, except for the SUV passenger side. Overall, compared to the optimal designs with unbelted requirements, optimal designs without unbelted requirements generated the same or lower total injury risks for belted occupants depending on statistical methods used for the analysis, but they could also increase the total injury risks for unbelted occupants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated potential for reducing injury risks to belted occupants if the unbelted requirements are eliminated. Further investigations are necessary to confirm these findings.

Rating child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for occupant protection.

BACKGROUND: State laws regarding child passenger protection vary substantially. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to develop a scoring system to rate child passenger safety laws relative to best practice recommendations for each age of child. METHODS: State child passenger safety and seat belt laws were retrieved from the LexisNexis database for the years 2002-2015. Text of the laws was reviewed and compared to current best practice recommendations for child occupant protection for each age of child. RESULTS: A 0-4 scale was developed to rate the strength of the state law relative to current best practice recommendations. A rating of 3 corresponds to a law that requires a restraint that is sufficient to meet best practice, and a rating of 4 is given to a law that specifies several options that would meet best practice. Scores of 0, 1, or 2 are given to laws requiring less than best practice to different degrees. The same scale is used for each age of child despite different restraint recommendations for each age. Legislation that receives a score of 3 requires rear-facing child restraints for children under age 2, forward-facing harnessed child restraints for children aged 2 to 4, booster seats for children 5 to 10, and primary enforcement of seat belt use in all positions for children aged 11-13. Legislation requiring use of a "child restraint system according to instructions" would receive a score of 1 for children under age 2 and a 2 for children aged 2-4 because it would allow premature use of a booster for children weighing more than 13.6 kg (30 lb). CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system developed in this study can be used in mathematical models to predict how child passenger safety legislation affects child restraint practices.

Evaluation of ISO CRS Envelopes Relative to U.S. Vehicles and Child Restraint Systems.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to use computer simulation to evaluate the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 13216-3:2006(E) child restraint system (CRS) envelopes relative to rear seat compartments from vehicles and CRSs in the U.S. market, investigate the potential compatibility issues of U.S. vehicles and CRSs, and demonstrate whether necessary modifications can be made to introduce such a system into compatibility evaluations between U.S. vehicles and CRSs. METHODS: Three-dimensional geometry models for 26 vehicles and 16 convertible CRS designs developed previously were used. Geometry models of 3 forward-facing and 3 rear-facing CRS envelopes provided by the ISO were built in the current study. The virtual fit process closely followed the physical procedures described in the ISO standards. RESULTS: The results showed that the current ISO rear-facing envelopes can provide reasonable classifications for CRSs and vehicles, but the forward-facing envelopes do not represent products currently in the U.S. market. In particular, all of the selected vehicles could accommodate the largest forward-facing CRS envelope at the second-row seat location behind the driver seat. In contrast, half of the selected CRSs could not fit within any of the forward-facing ISO CRS envelopes, mainly due to protrusion at the rear-top corner of the envelope. The results also indicate that the rear seat compartment in U.S. vehicles often cannot accommodate a large portion of convertible CRSs in the rear-facing position. The increased demand for vehicle fuel economy and the recommendation to keep children rear-facing longer may lead to smaller cars and larger CRSs, which may increase the potential for fit problems. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual classifications indicated that contact between the forward-facing CRSs and the head restraints in the rear seats as well as that between the rear-facing CRSs and the back of the front seats is a main concern regarding the compatibility between the vehicles and the CRSs. Therefore, modification of the current ISO forward-facing CRS envelopes will likely to be necessary to ensure that they are useful for the U.S. market.

Factors affecting tether use and correct use in child restraint installations.

INTRODUCTION: Field studies show that top tethers go unused in half of forward-facing child restraint installations. METHOD: In this study, parent volunteers were asked to use the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) to install child restraints in several vehicles to identify tether anchor characteristics that are associated with tether use. Thirty-seven volunteers were assigned to four groups. Each group tested two forward-facing child restraints in four of 16 vehicle models. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of tether use and correct use. RESULTS: Subjects used the tether in 89% of the 294 forward-facing child restraint installations and attached the tether correctly in 57% of the installations. Tethers were more likely to be used when the anchor was located on the rear deck as typically found in sedans compared with the seatback, floor, or roof. Tethers were less likely to be attached correctly when there was potentially confusing hardware present. No vehicle tether hardware characteristics or vehicle manual directions were associated specifically with correct tether routing and head restraint position. CONCLUSION: This study provides laboratory evidence that specific vehicle features are associated with tether use and correct use. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Modifications to vehicles that make tether anchors easier to find and identify likely will result in increases in tether use and correct use.

Effects of child restraint system features on installation errors.

This study examined how child restraint system (CRS) features contribute to CRS installation errors. Sixteen convertible CRS, selected to include a wide range of features, were used in volunteer testing with 32 subjects. Subjects were recruited based on their education level (high or low) and experience with installing CRS (none or experienced). Each subject was asked to perform four child restraint installations in the right-rear passenger seat of a 2006 Pontiac G6 sedan using a crash dummy as a child surrogate. Each subject installed two CRS forward-facing (FF), one with LATCH and one with the vehicle seatbelt, and two CRS rear-facing (RF), one with LATCH and one with the seatbelt. After each installation, the experimenter evaluated 42 factors for each installation, such as choice of belt routing path, tightness of installation, and harness snugness. Analyses used linear mixed models to identify CRS installation outcomes associated with CRS features. LATCH connector type, LATCH strap adjustor type, and the presence of belt lockoffs were associated with the tightness of the CRS installation. The type of harness shoulder height adjuster was associated with the rate of achieving a snug harness. Correct tether use was associated with the tether storage method. In general, subject assessments of the ease-of-use of CRS features were not highly correlated with the quality of their installation, suggesting a need for feedback with incorrect installations. The data from this study provide quantitative assessments of some CRS features that were associated with reductions in CRS installation errors. These results provide child restraint designers with design guidelines for developing easier-to-use products. Research on providing effective feedback during the child restraint installation process is recommended.

Vehicle LATCH system features associated with correct child restraint installations.

OBJECTIVE: Lower anchors and tethers for children (LATCH) was intended to standardize the attachment between child restraints and vehicle seats. However, LATCH implementations vary, resulting in differences in ease of attachment of child restraint connectors. Identifying vehicle characteristics associated with correct child restraint installations can provide guidance for designing vehicle LATCH systems that increase correct child restraint installations. METHODS: The LATCH system and other relevant vehicle characteristics were documented in 98 top-selling 2010-2011 vehicles. These features, together with proposed LATCH usability recommendations from the International Organization for Standardization and Society of Automotive Engineers, were used to select 12 vehicles for volunteer testing with a range of LATCH system characteristics. Thirty-six volunteers were assigned to 4 groups; each group tested 3 vehicles, 4 child restraints (infant, rear-facing convertible, forward-facing convertible, and combination seat), and 2 installation methods (lower anchors and seat belt) in a split-plot experimental design. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of tight installation and correct lower anchor use. RESULTS: Vehicle survey results indicated that most vehicle manufacturers provide the minimum number of LATCH hardware locations required by regulation. Among 21 vehicles with a third row, 4 had no tether anchors and 11 had no lower anchors in the third row. Study volunteers correctly used the lower anchors in 60 percent of LATCH installations and used the top tether in 48 percent of forward-facing installations. When the tether was used, use was correct in 46 percent of trials (22% of all forward-facing installations). Only 13 percent of all trials had completely correct child restraint installation (correct use of lower anchors or seat belt, correct tether anchor use, tight seat installation, and correct installation angle). Tight installation was 3.3 times as likely with correct lower anchor use compared to trials with incorrect use. Three lower anchor characteristics were associated with rates of correct lower anchor use above 50 percent: clearance angle around the lower anchors greater than 54°, attachment forces less than 178 N, and anchor depth within the seat bight of less than 2 cm. Vehicles meeting all 3 criteria were 19 times as likely to have lower anchors used correctly compared to vehicles meeting none of the criteria. No vehicle features predicted either use of tethers or correct use of tethers. CONCLUSIONS: Vehicle LATCH systems that improve lower anchor accessibility could increase the rate of correct lower anchor use, but more research is needed to understand factors associated with tether use and correct use.