Passenger use of and attitudes toward rear seat belts

Objectives: This study sought to identify attitudes toward belt use in the rear seat and to gain insight into the experiences of rear-seat passengers. Method: A telephone survey conducted between June and August 2016 targeted adult passengers who had recently ridden in the rear and who did not always wear their seat belt when doing so. Respondents were questioned regarding their reasons for not buckling up and possible conditions under which they would be more likely to buckle up during rear-seat travel. Results: Of 1163 recent rear-seat passengers, 72% reported always using their seat belt in the rear. Full-time belt use was lower among passengers who primarily travel in the rear of hired vehicles compared with personal vehicles. The most common explanation for not buckling up was that the back seat is safer than the front. Four out of five agreed they do not buckle up because of type of trip; two-thirds forget or do not see the need; and two-thirds agreed with reasons related to design, comfort, or usability issues. Nearly 40% agreed that they sometimes do not buckle up in the rear because there is no law requiring it. Conclusion: Many reasons for not using belts in the rear are similar to reasons in the front, such as forgetfulness, inconvenience, or discomfort. One difference is that many rear-seat passengers perceive using the belt is unnecessary because the back seat is safer than the front. More than half of part-time belt users and nonusers reported interventions such as rear seat belt reminders, stronger belt-use laws, and more comfortable belts would make them more likely to use their seat belt in the rear seat. Practical applications: This study identifies barriers to rear seat belt use that point to the need for a multi-faceted approach to increase belt use.     

Factors contributing to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes

Abstract

Objectives: Earlier research has shown that the rear row is safer for occupants in crashes than the front row, but there is evidence that improvements in front seat occupant protection in more recent vehicle model years have reduced the safety advantage of the rear seat versus the front seat. The study objective was to identify factors that contribute to serious and fatal injuries in belted rear seat occupants in frontal crashes in newer model year vehicles.

Methods: A case series review of belted rear seat occupants who were seriously injured or killed in frontal crashes was conducted. Occupants in frontal crashes were eligible for inclusion if they were 6 years old or older and belted in the rear of a 2000 or newer model year passenger vehicle within 10 model years of the crash year. Crashes were identified using the 2004–2015 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and included all eligible occupants with at least one Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3 or greater injury. Using these same inclusion criteria but split into younger (6 to 12 years) and older (55+ years) cohorts, fatal crashes were identified in the 2014–2015 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and then local police jurisdictions were contacted for complete crash records.

Results: Detailed case series review was completed for 117 rear seat occupants: 36 with Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) 3+ injuries in NASS-CDS and 81 fatalities identified in FARS. More than half of the injured and killed rear occupants were more severely injured than front seat occupants in the same crash. Serious chest injury, primarily caused by seat belt loading, was present in 22 of the injured occupants and 17 of the 37 fatalities with documented injuries. Nine injured occupants and 18 fatalities sustained serious head injury, primarily from contact with the vehicle interior or severe intrusion. For fatal cases, 12 crashes were considered unsurvivable due to a complete loss of occupant space. For cases considered survivable, intrusion was not a large contributor to fatality.

Discussion: Rear seat occupants sustained serious and fatal injuries due to belt loading in crashes in which front seat occupants survived, suggesting a discrepancy in restraint performance between the front and rear rows. Restraint strategies that reduce loading to the chest should be considered, but there may be potential tradeoffs with increased head excursion, particularly in the absence of rear seat airbags. Any new restraint designs should consider the unique needs of the rear seat environment.     

Driver and front passenger injury in frontal crashes: Update on the effect of unbelted rear occupants

Purpose: This is a study of the influence of an unbelted rear occupant on the risk of severe injury to the front seat occupant ahead of them in frontal crashes. It provides an update to earlier studies.

Methods: 1997–2015 NASS-CDS data were used to investigate the risk for severe injury (Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score [MAIS] 4+F) to belted drivers and front passengers in frontal crashes by the presence of a belted or unbelted passenger seated directly behind them or without a rear passenger. Frontal crashes were identified with GAD1 = F without rollover (rollover ≤ 0). Front and rear outboard occupants were included without ejection (ejection = 0). Injury severity was defined by MAIS and fatality (F) by TREATMNT = 1 or INJSEV = 4. Weighted data were determined. The risk for MAIS 4+F was determined using the number of occupants with known injury status MAIS 0+F. Standard errors were determined.

Results: The risk for severe injury was 0.803 ± 0.263% for the driver with an unbelted left rear occupant and 0.100 ± 0.039% with a belted left rear occupant. The driver's risk was thus 8.01 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted occupant (P <.001). With an unbelted right rear occupant behind the front passenger, the risk for severe injury was 0.277 ± 0.091% for the front passenger. The corresponding risk was 0.165 ± 0.075% when the right rear occupant was belted. The front passenger's risk was 1.68 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant behind them than a belted occupant (P <.001). The driver's risk for MAIS 4+F was highest when their seat was deformed forward. The risk was 9.94 times greater with an unbelted rear occupant than with a belted rear occupant when the driver's seat deformed forward. It was 13.4 ± 12.2% with an unbelted occupant behind them and 1.35 ± 0.95% with a belted occupant behind them.

Conclusions: Consistent with prior literature, seat belt use by a rear occupant significantly lowered the risk for severe injury to belted occupants seated in front of them. The reduction was greater for drivers than for front passengers. It was 87.5% for the driver and 40.6% for the front passenger. These results emphasize the need for belt reminders in all seating positions.     

Influence of seat properties on occupant dynamics in severe rear crashes

Seat performance in retaining an occupant, transferring energy, and controlling neck responses is often questioned after severe rear crashes when fatal or disabling injury occur. It is argued that a stiffer seat would have improved occupant kinematics. However, there are many factors in occupant interactions with the seat. This study evaluates four different seat types in 26 and 32 mph (42 and 51 km/h), rear crash delta Vs. Two seats were yielding with k = 20 kN/m occupant load per displacement. One represented a 1970s yielding seat with j = 3.4 degrees /kN frame rotation per occupant load, and 3 kN maximum load (660 Nm moment), and the other a high retention seat phased into production since 1997 with j = 1.4 degrees /kN, and 10 kN maximum load (2200 Nm). Two seats were stiff with k = 40 kN/m. One represented a 1990s foreign benchmark with j = 1.8 degrees /kN and a 7.7 kN maximum load (1700 Nm), and the other an all belts to seat (ABTS) with j = 1.0 degrees /kN and 20 kN maximum load (4400 Nm). The crash was a constant acceleration of 11.8 g, or 14.5 g for 100 ms. Occupant interactions with the seat were modeled using a torso mass, flexible neck and head mass. By analysis of the equations of motion, the initial change in seatback angle (Deltatheta) is proportional to jk(y - x), the product jk and the differential motion between the vehicle (seat cushion) and occupant. The transition from 1970s-80s yielding seats to stronger seats of the 1990s involved an increase in k stiffness; however, the jk property did not change as frame structures became stronger. The yielding seats of the 1970s had jk = 68 degrees /m, while the stiff foreign benchmark seat had jk = 72 degrees /m. The foreign benchmark rotated about the same as the 1970s seat up to 50 ms in the severe rear crashes. While it was substantially stronger, it produced higher loads on the occupant, and the higher loads increased seatback rotations and neck responses. The ABTS seat had the lowest rotations but also caused high neck responses because of the greater loads on the torso. Neck displacement (d) is initially proportional to (k/m(T)) integral integral y, seat stiffness times the second integral of vehicle displacement divided by torso mass. As seat stiffness increases, head-torso acceleration, velocity, and neck displacement increase. This study shows that the jk seat property determines the initial seatback rotation in rear crashes. If a stronger seat has a higher stiffness, it rotates at higher loads on the occupant, reducing the overall benefit of the stronger frame, while increasing neck responses related to whiplash or neck extension prior to subsequent impacts. The aim of seat designs should be to reduce jk, provide pocketing of the pelvis, and give head-neck support for the best protection in severe rear crashes. For low-speed crashes, a low k is important to reduce early neck responses related to whiplash.     

The safety implications of vehicle seat adjustments

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to gather information on the preferred front seat position of vehicle occupants and to determine the impact of variation in seat position on safety during crashes. METHOD: The study evaluated the relationship between seat position and occupant size using the chi-square test and compared the risk of severe injury for small females and large males with regard to forward and rearward seat position using logistic regression. RESULTS: While smaller drivers sat closer to the steering wheel than larger drivers, front passengers of all sizes used similar seat positions. Additionally, the risk of injury was higher for small, unbelted females in rearward seat positions and large males (belted and unbelted) in forward seat positions. CONCLUSIONS: Occupants who adjust their seats to positions that are not consistent with required federal tests are at a greater risk for severe injury in a crash.     

The safest seat: effect of seating position on occupant mortality

INTRODUCTION: This study investigated the survival rates of occupants of passenger cars involved in a fatal crash between 2000 and 2003. METHODS: The information from every fatal crash in the United States between 2000 and 2003 was analyzed. Variables such as seat position, point of impact, rollover, restraint use, vehicle type, vehicle weight, occupant age, and injury severity were extracted from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Univariate and a full logistic multivariate model analyses were performed. RESULTS: The data show that the rear middle seat is safer than any other occupant position when involved in a fatal crash. Overall, the rear (2(nd) row) seating positions have a 29.1% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.22 - 1.37) increased odds of survival over the first row seating positions and the rear middle seat has a 25% (Univariate Analysis, p<.0001, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.17 - 1.34) increased odds of survival over the other rear seat positions. After correcting for potential confounders, occupants of the rear middle seat have a 13% (Logistic Regression, p<.001, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.26) increased chance of survival when involved in a crash with a fatality than occupants in other rear seats. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that the safest position for any occupant involved in a motor-vehicle crash is the rear middle seat. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The results of this research may impact how automobile manufacturers look at future rear middle seat designs. If the rear seat was to be designed exactly like its outboard counterparts (headrest, armrests, lap and shoulder belt, etc.) people may choose to sit on it more often rather than waiting to use it out of necessity due to multiple rear seat occupants.     

Predictors of rear seat belt use among U.S. adults, 2012

IntroductionSeat belt use reduces the risk of injuries and fatalities among motor vehicle occupants in a crash, but belt use in rear seating positions is consistently lower than front seating positions. Knowledge is limited concerning factors associated with seat belt use among adult rear seat passengers.MethodsData from the 2012 ConsumerStyles survey were used to calculate weighted percentages of self-reported rear seat belt use by demographic characteristics and type of rear seat belt use enforcement. Multivariable regression was used to calculate prevalence ratios for rear seat belt use, adjusting for person-, household- and geographic-level demographic variables as well as for type of seat belt law in place in the state.ResultsRear seat belt use varied by age, race, geographic region, metropolitan status, and type of enforcement. Multivariable regression showed that respondents living in states with primary (Adjusted Prevalence Ratio (APR): 1.23) and secondary (APR: 1.11) rear seat belt use enforcement laws were significantly more likely to report always wearing a seat belt in the rear seat compared with those living in a state with no rear seat belt use enforcement law.Conclusions and practical applicationsSeveral factors were associated with self-reported seat belt use in rear seating positions. Evidence suggests that primary enforcement covering all seating positions is an effective intervention that can be employed to increase seat belt use and in turn prevent motor vehicle injuries to rear-seated occupants.     

Automated recognition of rear seat occupants' head position using Kinect™ 3D point cloud

IntroductionChild occupant safety in motor-vehicle crashes is evaluated using Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD) seated in optimal positions. However, child occupants often assume suboptimal positions during real-world driving trips. Head impact to the seat back has been identified as one important injury causation scenario for seat belt restrained, head-injured children (Bohman et al., 2011). There is therefore a need to understand the interaction of children with the Child Restraint System to optimize protection.MethodNaturalistic driving studies (NDS) will improve understanding of out-of-position (OOP) trends. To quantify OOP positions, an NDS was conducted. Families used a study vehicle for two weeks during their everyday driving trips. The positions of rear-seated child occupants, representing 22 families, were evaluated. The study vehicle – instrumented with data acquisition systems, including Microsoft Kinect™ V1 – recorded rear seat occupants in 1120 driving 26 trips. Three novel analytical methods were used to analyze data. To assess skeletal tracking accuracy, analysts recorded occurrences where Kinect™ exhibited invalid head recognition among a randomly-selected subset (81 trips). Errors included incorrect target detection (e.g., vehicle headrest) or environmental interference (e.g., sunlight). When head data was present, Kinect™ was correct 41% of the time; two other algorithms – filtering for extreme motion, and background subtraction/head-based depth detection are described in this paper and preliminary results are presented. Accuracy estimates were not possible because of their experimental nature and the difficulty to use a ground truth for this large database. This NDS tested methods to quantify the frequency and magnitude of head positions for rear-seated child occupants utilizing Kinect™ motion-tracking.ResultsThis study's results informed recent ATD sled tests that replicated observed positions (most common and most extreme), and assessed the validity of child occupant protection on these typical CRS uses.SummaryOptimal protection in vehicles requires an understanding of how child occupants use the rear seat space. This study explored the feasibility of using Kinect™ to log positions of rear seated child occupants. Initial analysis used the Kinect™ system’s skeleton recognition and two novel analytical algorithms to log head location.Practical applicationsThis research will lead to further analysis leveraging Kinect™ raw data – and other NDS data – to quantify the frequency/magnitude of OOP situations, ATD sled tests that replicate observed positions, and advances in the design and testing of child occupant protection technology.     

Belief about seat belt use and seat belt wearing behavior among front and rear seat passengers in the United States

Introduction: Unrestrained drivers and passengers represent almost half of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths in the United States. The current study assessed the relationship between the belief about importance of seat belt use and the behavior of always wearing a seat belt. Method: Data from 2012 ConsumerStyles were analyzed separately for front and rear passenger seating positions. Multivariable regression models were constructed to identify the association between seat belt belief and behavior (i.e., always wears seat belt) among adults. Models controlled for type of state seat belt law (primary, secondary, or none). Results: Seat belt use was higher in front passenger seats (86.1%) than in rear passenger seats (61.6%). Similarly, belief that seat belt use was very important was higher in reference to the front passenger seat (84.2%) versus the rear passenger seat (70.5%). For the front passenger seat, belief was significantly associated with seat belt use in states with both primary enforcement laws (adjPR 1.64) and secondary enforcement laws (adjPR 2.77). For the rear passenger seat, belief was also significantly associated with seat belt use, and two 2-way interactions were observed (belief by sex, belief by region). Conclusions: Despite overall high rates of seat belt use in the United States, certain groups are less likely to buckle up than others. The study findings suggest that efforts to increase seat belt use among high-risk populations, such as those who live in states with secondary or no seat belt laws and those who ride in rear seats (which include people who utilize taxis or ride-hailing vehicles) could benefit from interventions designed to strengthen beliefs related to the benefits of seat belt use. Practical applications: Future research that uses a theoretical framework to better understand the relationship between beliefs and behavior may inform interventions to improve seat belt use.     

Association Between NCAP Ratings and Real-World Rear Seat Occupant Risk of Injury

Objective: Several studies have evaluated the correlation between U.S. or Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) ratings and injury risk to front seat occupants, in particular driver injuries. Conversely, little is known about whether NCAP 5-star ratings predict real-world risk of injury to restrained rear seat occupants. The NHTSA has identified rear seat occupant protection as a specific area under consideration for improvements to its NCAP. In order to inform NHTSA's efforts, we examined how NCAP's current 5-star rating system predicts risk of moderate or greater injury among restrained rear seat occupants in real-world crashes.

Methods: We identified crash-involved vehicles, model year 2004–2013, in NASS-CDS (2003–2012) with known make and model and nonmissing occupant information. We manually matched these vehicles to their NCAP star ratings using data on make, model, model year, body type, and other identifying information. The resultant linked NASS-CDS and NCAP database was analyzed to examine associations between vehicle ratings and rear seat occupant injury risk; risk to front seat occupants was also estimated for comparison. Data were limited to restrained occupants and occupant injuries were defined as any injury with a maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 2 or greater.

Results: We linked 95% of vehicles in NASS-CDS to a specific vehicle in NCAP. The 18,218 vehicles represented an estimated 6 million vehicles with over 9 million occupants. Rear seat passengers accounted for 12.4% of restrained occupants. The risk of injury in all crashes for restrained rear seat occupants was lower in vehicles with a 5-star driver rating in frontal impact tests (1.4%) than with 4 or fewer stars (2.6%, P =.015); results were similar for the frontal impact passenger rating (1.3% vs. 2.4%, P =.024). Conversely, side impact driver and passenger crash tests were not associated with rear seat occupant injury risk (driver test: 1.7% for 5-star vs. 1.8% for 1–4 stars; passenger test: 1.6% for 5 stars vs 1.8% for 1–4 stars).

Conclusions: Current frontal impact test procedures provide some degree of discrimination in real-world rear seat injury risk among vehicles with 5 compared to fewer than 5 stars. However, there is no evidence that vehicles with a 5-star side impact passenger rating, which is the only crash test procedure to include an anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) in the rear, demonstrate lower risks of injury in the rear than vehicles with fewer than 5 stars. These results support prioritizing modifications to the NCAP program that specifically evaluate rear seat injury risk to restrained occupants of all ages.     

Self-reported factors that influence rear seat belt use among adults

Introduction: While seat belt use among front seat occupants has significantly increased overtime a substantial usage gap still exists between front and back seat occupants. This study aims to identify factors that predict rear seat belt use among adult back seat passengers. Methods: We examined data from the 2016 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey, conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to determine the influence of front seat belt use, support of and belief of rear seat belt use laws, peer perception of seat belt use, nighttime belt use, and demographic factors on self-reported rear seat belt use. Rao-Scott chi-squared tests were used to determine significant associations between self-reported rear belt use and each predictor. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios and determine the influence of significant predictors on rear seat belt use. Sampling weights were applied to produce nationally representative estimates; all statistical significance tests accounted for the complex survey design. Results: Among adults who reported riding in the back seat, 63% reported always using a rear seat belt. Front seat belt use, support and belief of state seat belt laws, nighttime seat belt use, age, and education were significantly associated with rear seat belt use. Multivariate regression results showed that adults who supported rear seat belt laws, reported front seat belt use and believed their state has a rear seat belt law were significantly more likely to report full-time use in the back seat. Conclusions: Seat belt laws and front seat belt use had the strongest association with reporting full-time use in the back seat. Practical Applications: Increasing familiarity with existing laws directed towards rear seat belt use as well as increasing awareness about the benefits of seat belts in all seating positions may help improve rear seat belt use.     

Influence of seat foam and geometrical properties on BioRID P3 kinematic response to rear impacts

As the primary interface with the human body during rear impact, the automotive seat holds great promise for mitigation of Whiplash Associated Disorders (WAD). Recent research has chronicled the potential influence of both seat geometrical and constitutive properties on occupant dynamics and injury potential. Geometrical elements such as reduced head to head restraint, rearward offset, and increased head restraint height have shown strong correlation with reductions in occupant kinematics. The stiffness and energy absorption of both the seating foam and the seat infrastructure are also influential on occupant motion; however, the trends in injury mitigation are not as clear as for the geometrical properties. It is of interest to determine whether, for a given seat frame and infrastructure, the properties of the seating foam alone can be tailored to mitigate WAD potential. Rear impact testing was conducted using three model year 2000 automotive seats (Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet S-10 pickup, and Pontiac Grand Prix), using the BioRID P3 anthropometric rear impact dummy. Each seat was distinct in construction and geometry. Each seat back was tested with various foams (i.e., standard, viscoelastic, low or high density). Seat geometries and infrastructures were constant so that the influence of the seating foams on occupant dynamics could be isolated. Three tests were conducted on each foam combination for a given seat (total of 102 tests), with a nominal impact severity of Delta V = 11 km/h (nominal duration of 100 msec). The seats were compared across a host of occupant kinematic variables most likely to be associated with WAD causation. No significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between seat back foams for tests within any given seat. However, seat comparisons yielded several significant differences (p < 0.05). The Camaro seat was found to result in several significantly different occupant kinematic variables when compared to the other seats. No significant differences were found between the Grand Prix and S-10 seats. Seat geometrical characteristics obtained from the Head Restraint Measuring Device (HRMD) showed good correlation with several occupant variables. It appears that for these seats and foams the head-to-head restraint horizontal and vertical distances are overwhelmingly more influential on occupant kinematics and WAD potential than the local foam properties within a given seat.     

Seat influences on female neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why women have higher whiplash rates

Since the earliest crash investigations, whiplash has been found to occur more often in women than men. This study addresses seat properties that may explain a reason for the higher rates in women, and changes in whiplash in general over the past two decades. Three exemplar seats were defined on the basis of seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) for rearward occupant load. Stiff seats have k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark loaded by a male. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat (1997 Grand Prix) and another k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a 1980s to 1990s yielding seat (1990 Buick Park Avenue). Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 msec gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, and 24 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback with flexible neck and head mass. Based on biomechanical data and scaling, neck stiffness was 5 kN/m and 3 kN/m for the male and female, respectively. Based on validation tests, seat stiffness was 25% less with the female. Occupant dynamics were simulated in a step-forward solution based on the differential displacement between the head, torso, and seat up to head restraint contact. Neck responses were 30% higher in the female than male through most of the rear impact and are proportional to (kF/mTF)/(kM/mTM), which is the ratio of seat stiffness divided by torso mass for the female and male. Neck displacements were higher with the stiff seat than the 1990 C car seat for both the female and male. They peaked at 10 km/h and dropped off for higher severity crashes due to the shorter time to head contact. Neck displacements were greater in the female than male for the lowest severity crashes with the stiff and 1990 C car seats, when displacement was scaled for equal tolerance. The female in 1997 W car seat had the lowest neck displacements. Stiff seats increased neck displacements over the yielding seats of the 1980s in rear crashes. The trend is similar in men and women, but early neck displacements are greater in women because of a higher ratio of seat stiffness to torso mass. This implies that seat stiffness is not sufficiently low in proportion to the female mass in comparison to males. The j and k seat properties influence neck biomechanics and occupant dynamics, but k is important in determining early response differences between males and females.     

A Simulation Study on the Efficacy of Advanced Belt Restraints to Mitigate the Effects of Obesity for Rear-Seat Occupant Protection in Frontal Crashes

Objective: Recent field data analyses have shown that the safety advantages of rear seats relative to the front seats have decreased in newer vehicles. Separately, the risks of certain injuries have been found to be higher for obese occupants. The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of advanced belt features on the protection of rear-seat occupants with a range of body mass index (BMI) in frontal crashes.

Methods: Whole-body finite element human models with 4 BMI levels (25, 30, 35, and 40 kg/m²) developed previously were used in this study. A total of 52 frontal crash simulations were conducted, including 4 simulations with a standard rear-seat, 3-point belt and 48 simulations with advanced belt features. The parameters varied in the simulations included BMI, load limit, anchor pretensioner, and lap belt routing relative to the pelvis. The injury measurements analyzed in this study included head and hip excursions, normalized chest deflection, and torso angle (defined as the angle between the hip–shoulder line and the vertical direction). Analyses of covariance were used to test the significance (P <.05) of the results.

Results: Higher BMI was associated with greater head and hip excursions and larger normalized chest deflection. Higher belt routing increased the hip excursion and torso angle, which indicates a higher submarining risk, whereas the anchor pretensioner reduced hip excursion and torso angle. Lower load limits decreased the normalized chest deflection but increased the head excursion. Normalized chest deflection had a positive correlation with maximum torso angle. Occupants with higher BMI have to use higher load limits to reach head excursions similar to those in lower BMI occupants.

Discussion and Conclusion: The simulation results suggest that optimizing load limiter and adding pretensioner(s) can reduce injury risks associated with obesity, but conflicting effects on head and chest injuries were observed. This study demonstrated the feasibility and importance of using human models to investigate protection for occupants with various BMI levels. A seat belt system capable of adapting to occupant size and body shape will improve protection for obese occupants in rear seats.     

Injuries in Full-Scale Vehicle Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier and Pole Tests Using Postmortem Human Subjects

Objective: To conduct near-side moving deformable barrier (MDB) and pole tests with postmortem human subjects (PMHS) in full-scale modern vehicles, document and score injuries, and examine the potential for angled chest loading in these tests to serve as a data set for dummy biofidelity evaluations and computational modeling.

Methods: Two PMHS (outboard left front and rear seat occupants) for MDB and one PMHS (outboard left front seat occupant) for pole tests were used. Both tests used sedan-type vehicles from same manufacturer with side airbags. Pretest x-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained. Three-point belt-restrained surrogates were positioned in respective outboard seats. Accelerometers were secured to T1, T6, and T12 spines; sternum and pelvis; seat tracks; floor; center of gravity; and MDB. Load cells were used on the pole. Biomechanical data were gathered at 20 kHz. Outboard and inboard high-speed cameras were used for kinematics. X-rays and CT images were taken and autopsy was done following the test. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005 scoring scheme was used to score injuries.

Results: MDB test: male (front seat) and female (rear seat) PMHS occupant demographics: 52 and 57 years, 177 and 166 cm stature, 78 and 65 kg total body mass. Demographics of the PMHS occupant in the pole test: male, 26 years, 179 cm stature, and 84 kg total body mass. Front seat PMHS in MDB test: 6 near-side rib fractures (AIS = 3): 160–265 mm vertically from suprasternal notch and 40–80 mm circumferentially from center of sternum. Left rear seat PMHS responded with multiple bilateral rib fractures: 9 on the near side and 5 on the contralateral side (AIS = 3). One rib fractured twice. On the near and contralateral sides, fractures were 30–210 and 20–105 mm vertically from the suprasternal notch and 90–200 and 55–135 mm circumferentially from the center of sternum. A fracture of the left intertrochanteric crest occurred (AIS = 3). Pole test PMHS had one near-side third rib fracture. Thoracic accelerations of the 2 occupants were different in the MDB test. Though both occupants sustained positive and negative x-accelerations to the sternum, peak magnitudes and relative changes were greater for the rear than the front seat occupant. Magnitudes of the thoracic and sternum accelerations were lower in the pole test.

Conclusions: This is the first study to use PMHS occupants in MDB and pole tests in the same recent model year vehicles with side airbag and head curtain restraints. Injuries to the unilateral thorax for the front seat PMHS in contrast to the bilateral thorax and hip for the rear seat occupant in the MDB test indicate the effects of impact on the seating location and restraint system. Posterolateral locations of fractures to the front seat PMHS are attributed to constrained kinematics of occupant interaction with torso side airbag restraint system. Angled loading to the rear seat occupant from coupled sagittal and coronal accelerations of the sternum representing anterior thorax loading contributed to bilateral fractures. Inward bending initiated by the distal femur complex resulting in adduction of ipsilateral lower extremity resulted in intertrochanteric fracture to the rear seat occupant. These results serve as a data set for evaluating the biofidelity of the WorldSID and federalized side impact dummies and assist in validating human body computational models, which are increasingly used in crashworthiness studies.     

Seat properties affecting neck responses in rear crashes: a reason why whiplash has increased

Whiplash has increased over the past two decades. This study compares occupant dynamics with three different seat types (two yielding and one stiff) in rear crashes. Responses up to head restraint contact are used to describe possible reasons for the increase in whiplash as seat stiffness increased in the 1980s and 1990s. Three exemplar seats were defined by seat stiffness (k) and frame rotation stiffness (j) under occupant load. The stiff seat had k=40 kN/m and j=1.8 degrees /kN representing a foreign benchmark. One yielding seat had k=20 kN/m and j=1.4 degrees /kN simulating a high-retention seat. The other had k=20 kN/m and j=3.4 degrees /kN simulating a typical yielding seat of the 1980s and 1990s. Constant vehicle acceleration for 100 ms gave delta-V of 6, 10, 16, 24, and 35 km/h. The one-dimensional model included a torso mass loading the seatback, head motion through a flexible neck, and head restraint drop and rearward displacement with seatback rotation. Neck displacement was greatest with the stiff seat due to higher loads on the torso. It peaked at 10 km/h rear delta-V and was lower in higher-severity crashes. It averaged 32% more than neck displacements with the 1980s yielding seat. The high-retention seat had 67% lower neck displacements than the stiff seat because of yielding into the seatback, earlier head restraint contact and less seatback rotation, which involved 16 mm drop in head restraint height due to seatback rotation in the 16 km/h rear delta-V. This was significantly lower than 47 mm with the foreign benchmark and 73 mm with the 1980s yielding seat. Early in the crash, neck responses are proportional to ky/mT, seat stiffness times vehicle displacement divided by torso mass, so neck responses increase with seat stiffness. The trend toward stiffer seats increased neck responses over the yielding seats of the 1980s and 1990s, which offers one explanation for the increase in whiplash over the past two decades. This is a result of not enough seat suspension compliance as stronger seat frames were introduced. As seat stiffness has increased, so have neck displacements and the Neck Injury Criterion (NIC). High-retention seats reduce neck biomechanical responses by allowing the occupant to displace into the seatback at relatively low torso loads until head restraint contact and then transferring crash energy. High-retention seats resolve the historic debate between stiff (rigid) and yielding seats by providing both a strong frame (low j) for occupant retention and yielding suspension (low k) to reduce whiplash.     

Effect of automated versus manual emergency braking on rear seat adult and pediatric occupant precrash motion

Abstract

Objective: Emergency braking can potentially generate precrash occupant motion that may influence the effectiveness of restraints in the subsequent crash, particularly for rear-seated occupants who may be less aware of the impending crash. With the advent of automated emergency braking (AEB), the mechanism by which braking is achieved is changing, potentially altering precrash occupant motion. Further, due to anatomical and biomechanical differences across ages, kinematic differences between AEB and manual emergency braking (MEB) may vary between child and adult occupants. Therefore, the objective of this study was to quantify differences in rear-seated adult and pediatric kinematics and muscle activity during AEB and MEB scenarios.

Methods: Vehicle maneuvers were performed in a recent model year sedan traveling at 50?km/h. MEB (acceleration ～1?g) was achieved by the driver pressing the brake pedal with maximum effort. AEB (acceleration ～0.8?g) was triggered by the vehicle system. Inertial and Global Positioning System data were collected. Seventeen male participants aged 10–33 were restrained in the rear right passenger seat and experienced each maneuver twice. The subjects’ kinematics were recorded with an 8-camera 3D motion capture system. Electromyography (EMG) recorded muscle activity. Head and trunk displacements, raw and normalized by seated height, and peak head and trunk velocity were compared across age and between maneuvers. Mean EMG was calculated to interpret kinematic findings.

Results: Head and trunk displacement and peak velocity were greater in MEB than in AEB in both raw and normalized data (P?≤?.01). No effect of age was observed (P?≥?.21). Peak head and trunk velocities were greater in repetition 1 than in repetition 2 (P?≤?.006) in MEB but not in AEB. Sternocleidomastoid (SCM) mean EMG was greater in MEB compared to AEB, and muscle activity increased in repetition 2 in MEB.

Conclusions: Across all ages, head and trunk excursions were greater in MEB than AEB, despite increased muscle activity in MEB. This observation may suggest an ineffective attempt to brace the head or a startle reflex. The increased excursion in MEB compared to AEB may be attributed to differences in the acceleration pulses between the 2 scenarios. These results suggest that AEB systems can use specific deceleration profiles that have potential to reduce occupant motion across diverse age groups compared to sudden maximum emergency braking applied manually.     

The Importance of Non-struck Side Occupants in Side Collisions

Current occupant protection assessment for side impact is focused on struck side occupants sitting alone. In a representative sample of tow-away side collisions from the UK, only one-third of front seat occupants in side collisions were alone, on the struck side of the car. The other two-thirds were either a non-struck side occupant alone or a situation where the adjacent seat was also occupied. In terms of restraint protection for non-struck side occupants, belts appeared to be less effective in perpendicular compared to oblique side crashes. Front seat occupancy had bearing on injury outcome. With both front seats occupied, there was a reduction in AIS 27+ injury to belted non-struck side occupants due to a reduction in chest and lower limb injuries. Struck side occupants sustained increased injury rates to the extremities when accompanied by a belted non-struck side occupant but no notable increases in moderate to serious injury to the head, chest, abdomen or pelvis.     

Rollover injury: effects of near- and far-seating position, belt use, and number of quarter rolls

PURPOSE: Vehicle and occupant responses in rollovers are complex since many factors influence both. This study analyzes the following factors: 1) belt use, 2) seated position with respect to the lead side in the rollover, 3) another front occupant in the crash, and 4) number of quarter rolls. The aim was to improve our understanding of rollover injury mechanisms. METHOD: Rollover accidents were analyzed using 1992-2004 NASS-CDS data. The sample included adult drivers and right-front passengers. All occupants were evaluated and then a subset of non-ejected occupants was analyzed. Using roll direction and seating position, the sample was divided into near- and far-seated occupants. Injury and fatality risks were determined by seatbelt use, occupancy, rollover direction, and number of quarter rolls. Risk was defined as the number of injured (e.g., MAIS 3+) divided by the number of exposed occupants (MAIS 0-6). Significance in differences was determined. A matched-pair analysis was used to determine the risk of serious injury for near- and far-seated occupants who were either belted or unbelted in the same crash. RESULTS: For all occupants, serious injury risks were highest for far-seated, unbelted occupants at 18.1% +/- 4.8%, followed by near-seated unbelted occupants at 12.0% +/- 3.5%. However, the difference was not statistically significant. Belted near- and far-seated occupants had a similar injury risk of 4.3% +/- 1.2% and 4.0% +/- 1.2%, respectively. For non-ejected occupants, serious injury risk was 9.5% +/- 3.2% for far-seated unbelted occupants and 4.9% +/- 2.1% for near-seated unbelted occupants, not a statistically significant difference. Serious injury risk was similar for belted near- and far-seated non-ejected occupants, at 3.6% +/- 1.1%. Seatbelts were 64.2%-77.9% effective in preventing serious injury for all occupants and 62.1%-26.5% for far- and near-seated, non-ejected occupants, respectively. Based on the matched pairs, seatbelts were less effective for near-seated (5.0%) compared to far-seated (2.8%) occupant MAIS 3+F risks. This was similar for non-ejected occupants. An unbelted near-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted far-seated occupant by 2.2 times, whereas an unbelted far-seated occupant increased the risk for a belted near-seated occupant by 10.2 times. For all occupants, the risk of serious injury increased with the number of quarter rolls, irrespective of seated position. For near-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was higher in < or =1 roll than 1+ roll, at 72.3% compared to 28.3%. For far-seated occupants, seatbelt effectiveness was similar in < or =1 and 1+ roll samples at 78.3% and 76.8%, respectively. Near-seated occupants had the lowest serious injury risk when they were the sole occupant in the vehicle. This was also true for non-ejected occupants. However, far-seated occupants had a lower injury risk when another occupant was involved in the crash. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of carrying another occupant appears to reduce the risk of serious injury to far-seated occupants. However, near-seated occupants are better off being the sole occupant in the vehicle. Seatbelt effectiveness was lowest at 28.3% for non-ejected, near-seated occupants in 1+ rolls. This finding deserves further evaluation in an effort to improve seatbelt effectiveness in rollovers. For belted drivers alone in a rollover, fatality risks are 2.24 times higher for the far- versus near-seated position. Analysis of rollovers by quarter turns indicates that occupants are both far-side and near-side in rollovers. The extent to which this confounds the relationship between roll direction, seating position, and injury risk is unknown.     

Occupant responses in conventional and ABTS seats in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study compared biomechanical responses of a normally seated Hybrid III dummy on conventional and all belts to seat (ABTS) seats in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests. It determined the difference in performance with modern (≥2000 MY) seats compared to older (<2000 MY) seats and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position. The testing included 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented, including head accelerations, upper and lower neck 6-axis load cells, chest acceleration, thoracic and lumbar spine load cells, and pelvis accelerations. The peak responses were normalized by injury assessment reference values (IARVs) to assess injury risks. Statistical analysis was conducted using Student's t test. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: Biomechanical responses were lower with modern (≥2000 MY) seats than older (<2000 MY) designs. The lower neck extension moment was 32.5 ± 9.7% of IARV in modern seats compared to 62.8 ± 31.6% in older seats (P =.01). Overall, there was a 34% reduction in the comparable biomechanical responses with modern seats. Biomechanical responses were lower with modern seats than ABTS seats. The lower neck extension moment was 41.4 ± 7.8% with all MY ABTS seats compared to 32.5 ± 9.7% in modern seats (P =.07). Overall, the ABTS seats had 13% higher biomechanical responses than the modern seats.

Conclusions: Modern (≥2000 MY) design seats have lower biomechanical responses in 40.2 km/h rear sled tests than older (<2000 MY) designs and ABTS designs. The improved performance is consistent with an increase in seat strength combined with improved occupant kinematics through pocketing of the occupant into the seatback, higher and more forward head restraint, and other design changes. The methods and data presented here provide a basis for standardized testing of seats. However, a complete understanding of seat safety requires consideration of out-of-position (OOP) occupants in high-speed impacts and consideration of the much more common, low-speed rear impacts.