Evaluation of give kids a boost: A school-based program to increase booster seat use among urban children in economically disadvantaged areas

Objective: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a series of 1-year multifaceted school-based programs aimed at increasing booster seat use among urban children 4–7 years of age in economically disadvantaged areas.

Methods: During 4 consecutive school years, 2011–2015, the Give Kids a Boost (GKB) program was implemented in a total of 8 schools with similar demographics in Dallas County. Observational surveys were conducted at project schools before project implementation (P₀), 1–4 weeks after the completion of project implementation (P₁), and 4–5 months later (P₂). Changes in booster seat use for the 3 time periods were compared for the 8 project and 14 comparison schools that received no intervention using a nonrandomized trial process.

The intervention included (1) train-the-trainer sessions with teachers and parents; (2) presentations about booster seat safety; (3) tailored communication to parents; (4) distribution of fact sheets/resources; (5) walk-around education; and (6) booster seat inspections.

The association between the GKB intervention and proper booster seat use was determined initially using univariate analysis. The association was also estimated using a generalized linear mixed model predicting a binomial outcome (booster seat use) for those aged 4 to 7 years, adjusted for child-level variables (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and car-level variables (vehicle type). The model incorporated the effects of clustering by site and by collection date to account for the possibility of repeated sampling.

Results: In the 8 project schools, booster seat use for children 4–7 years of age increased an average of 20.9 percentage points between P₀ and P₁ (P₀ = 4.8%, P₁ = 25.7%; odds ratio [OR] = 6.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5, 8.7; P < .001) and remained at that level in the P₂ time period (P₂ = 25.7%; P < .001, for P₀ vs. P₂) in the univariate analysis. The 14 comparison schools had minimal change in booster seat use. The multivariable model showed that children at the project schools were significantly more likely to be properly restrained in a booster seat after the intervention (OR = 2.7; 95% CI, 2.2, 3.3) compared to the P₀ time period and compared to the comparison schools.

Conclusion: Despite study limitations, the GKB program was positively associated with an increase in proper booster seat use for children 4–7 years of age in school settings among diverse populations in economically disadvantaged areas. These increases persisted into the following school year in a majority of the project schools. The GKB model may be a replicable strategy to increase booster seat use among school-age children in similar urban settings.     

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.     

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.     

Reasons for Child Passenger Nonrestraint in Motor Vehicles

Objective: Although child passenger restraint use in motor vehicles has increased, there is an important minority of children who remain unrestrained. The goal of this study was to identify the frequency of and under what circumstances parents keep their children unrestrained.

Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey was distributed to parents and caregivers of children 10 years old and younger. Survey participants were asked about child restraint practices, including frequency of and reasons for nonuse of restraints. Parents were specifically asked how acceptable it would be to keep their child unrestrained in certain situations.

Results: One thousand two hundred eighty-five parents and guardians responded to the survey and 1,002 completed it; 23.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.3–26.6%) of respondents said they had driven with their child not fully restrained on at least one occasion. Approximately 1 in 5 parents strongly or somewhat agreed that it would be acceptable to keep their child unrestrained in certain situations, including a short drive, in a rush, an inadequate number of restraints, riding in a taxi, if somebody was holding the child, and as a reward for a child. Parents were more likely to agree that it was acceptable to keep their child unrestrained under nearly all circumstances listed if they were male, ages 18–29, with a graduate school education, in the $100,000+ income bracket, or Latino.

Conclusions: There are certain situations for which parents find it acceptable to leave their children unrestrained. This has implications for targeted child passenger safety efforts designed to maximize consistent restraint use.     

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.     

Parental awareness and perception for correct use of child restraint systems and airbags in Brazil

Objective: The objective of this study was to obtain information about the current knowledge and habits of parents who transport children in cars in Brazil.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using specifically designed self-report questionnaires to parents of children attending a private pediatric office in a town in southwest Brazil. Data were collected regarding children's age, gender, height, and weight and possession of an automobile child restraint system (CRS), its type, frequency and adequacy of use, and reasons for not possessing or not using the devices. Parents were asked whether their cars were equipped with airbags and about the use of the restraints in seats with airbags.

Results: We interviewed parents of 293 children transported in cars who met the criteria for use of a CRS. Children were younger than 1 year in 15.3% of the cases, between 1 and 4 years in 38.6%, and older than 4 in 46.1%. Cars were equipped with CRS in 78.5% of the cases, but in only 58% of the cases was the device proper for child's age and adequately installed in the seat. Among owners of the devices, 84.3% reported that they always used it. Reasons for infrequency were forgetting the device at home or in another car (6.4%), the child disliking the device (3.2%), or the false impression that the child was grown enough not to use it (3.2%)l 87.1% did not justify why they did not always use the CRS. Considering type of CRS, correct installation of the seat, and frequency of use, only 44.4% of children under 1 year, 69.9% of those 1 to 4 years, and 52.6% over age 4 were protected. Only 28.6% of the parents knew that children should never be positioned in a seat with active airbags.

Conclusion: Considering appropriateness for age, correctness of installation (in the back seat in the correct orientation), and frequency of use, only 50.85% (149/293) of the children were reported as always protected with a CRS. Children between 1 and 4 years were more likely to always use a CRS in this Brazilian survey. We were also able to identify an important gap in the knowledge about airbags among parents. Further efforts are needed to correct those distortions.     

Real-world adjustments of driver seat and head restraint in Saab 9-3 vehicles

Objective: Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD), commonly denoted whiplash injury, is a worldwide problem. These injuries occur at relatively low changes of velocity (typically <25 km/h) in impacts from all directions. Rear impacts, however, are the most common in the injury statistics. Females have a 1.5–3 times higher risk of whiplash injury than males.

?Improved seat design is the prevailing means of increasing the protection of whiplash injury for occupants in rear impacts. Since 1997, more advanced whiplash protection systems have been introduced on the market, the Saab Active Head Restraint (SAHR) being one of the most prominent. The SAHR—which is height adjustable—is mounted to a pressure plate in the seatback by means of a spring-resisted link mechanism.

?Nevertheless, studies have shown that seats equipped with reactive head restraints (such as the SAHR) have a very high injury-reducing effect for males (～60–70%) but very low or no reduction effect for females. One influencing factor could be the position of the head restraint relative to the head, because a number of studies have reported that adjustable head restraints often are incorrectly positioned by drivers.

?The aim was to investigate how female and male Saab drivers adjust the seat in the car they drive the most.

Methods: The seated positions of drivers in stationary conditions have been investigated in a total of 76 volunteers (34 females, 42 males) who participated in the study. Inclusion criteria incorporated driving a Saab 9–3 on a regularly basis.

Results: The majority of the volunteers (89%) adjusted the head restraint to any of the 3 uppermost positions and as many as 59% in the top position.

?The average vertical distance between the top of the head and the top of the head restraint (offset) increase linearly with increasing statures, from an average of ?26 mm (head below the head restraint) for small females to an average of 82 mm (head above the head restraint) for large males. On average, the offset was 23 mm for females, which is within a satisfactory range and in accordance with recommendations; the corresponding value for males was 72 mm.

?The backset tended to be shorter among female volunteers (on average 27 mm) compared to the male volunteers (on average 44 mm). Moreover, the backset tended to increase with increasing statures.

Conclusions: Incorrect adjustment of the head restraint cannot explain the large differences found between the sexes in the effectiveness of the SAHR system.     

Investigation of Child Restraint System (CRS) Compatibility in the Vehicle Seat Environment

Objective: Child restraint system (CRS) misuse is common and can have serious consequences to child safety. Physical incompatibilities between CRS and vehicles can complicate the installation process and may worsen CRS misuse rates. This study aims to identify the most common sources of incompatibility between representative groups of CRS and vehicles.

Methods: Detailed dimensional data were collected from 59 currently marketed CRS and 61 late model vehicles. Key dimensions were compared across all 3,599 theoretical CRS/vehicle combinations and the most common predicted incompatibilities were determined. A subset of 34 physical installations was analyzed to validate the results.

Results: Only 58.2% of rear-facing (RF) CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have proper agreement between the vehicle's seat pan angle and the CRS manufacturers’ required base angle. The width of the base of the CRS was predicted to fit snugly between the vehicle's seat pan bolsters in 63.3% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations and 62.2% of forward-facing (FF) CRS/vehicle combinations. FF CRS were predicted to be free of interaction with the vehicle's head restraint in 66.4% of combinations. Roughly 90.0% of RF CRS/vehicle combinations were predicted to have enough horizontal clearance space to set the front seat in the middle its fore/aft slider track. Compatibility rates were above 98% regarding the length of the CRS base compared to the length of the vehicle seat pan and the ability of the top tether to reach the tether anchor. Validation studies revealed that the predictions of RF CRS base angle range vs. seat pan angle compatibility were accurate within 6%, and head restraint interference and front row clearance incompatibilities may be more common than the dimensional analysis approach has predicted.

Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that RF CRS base angles and front row clearance space, as well as FF CRS head restraint interference, are frequent compatibility concerns. These results enable manufacturers, researchers, and consumers to focus their attention on the most relevant CRS/vehicle incompatibility issues in today's market.     

An energy-absorbing sliding seat for reducing neck injury risks in rear impact—analysis for prototype built

Objective: This study investigated overall performance of an energy-absorbing sliding seat concept for whiplash neck injury prevention. The sliding seat allows its seat pan to slide backward for some distance under certain restraint force to absorb crash energy in rear impacts.

Methods: A numerical model that consisted of vehicle interior, seat, seat belt, and BioRID II dummy was built in MADYMO to evaluate whiplash neck injury in rear impact. A parametric study of the effects of sliding seat parameters, including position and cushion stiffness of head restraint, seatback cushion stiffness, recliner characteristics, and especially sliding energy-absorbing (EA) restraint force, on neck injury criteria was conducted in order to compare the effectiveness of the sliding seat concept with that of other existing anti-whiplash mechanisms. Optimal sliding seat design configurations in rear crashes of different severities were obtained. A sliding seat prototype with bending of a steel strip as an EA mechanism was fabricated and tested in a sled test environment to validate the concept. The performance of the sliding seat under frontal and rollover impacts was checked to make sure the sliding mechanism did not result in any negative effects.

Results: The protective effect of the sliding seat with EA restraint force is comparable to that of head restraint–based and recliner stiffness–based anti-whiplash mechanisms. EA restraint force levels of 3 kN in rear impacts of low and medium severities and 6 kN in impacts of high severity were obtained from optimization. In frontal collision and rollover, compared to the nonsliding seat, the sliding seat does not result in any negative effects on occupant protection. The sled test results of the sliding seat prototype have shown the effectiveness of the concept for reducing neck injury risks.

Conclusion: As a countermeasure, the sliding seat with appropriate restraint forces can significantly reduce whiplash neck injury risk in rear impacts of low, medium, and high severities with no negative effects on other crash load cases.     

Variations in booster seat use by child characteristics

IntroductionChild weight and height are the basis of manufacturer and best practice guidelines for child restraint system use. However, these guides do not address behavioral differences among children of similar age, weight, and height, which may result in child-induced restraint use errors. The objective of this study was to characterize child behaviors across age in relation to appropriate restraint system use during simulated drives. Methods: Fifty mother–child (4–8 years) dyads completed an installation into a driving simulator, followed by a simulated drive that was video-recorded and coded for child-induced errors. Time inappropriately restrained was measured as the total amount of the simulated drive spent in an improper or unsafe position for the restraint to be effective divided by the total drive time. Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine differences across age in the frequency of error events and overall time inappropriately restrained. Results: Children in harnessed seats had no observed errors during trips. Within children sitting in booster seats there were differences in time inappropriately restrained across age (p = 0.01), with 4 year-olds spending on average 67% (Median = 76%) of the drive inappropriately restrained, compared to the rest of the age categories spending less than 28% (Medians ranged from 3% to 23%). Conclusion: Some children may be physically compatible with booster seats, but not behaviorally mature enough to safely use them. More research is needed that examines how child behavior influences child passenger safety. Practical Applications: Not all children physically big enough are behaviorally ready to use belt positioning booster seats. Primary sources of information should provide caregivers with individualized guidance about when it is appropriate to transition children out of harnessed seats. Additionally, best practice guidelines should be updated to reflect what behaviors are needed from children to safely use specific types of child restraint systems.     

Child passengers and driver culpability in fatal crashes by driver gender

Objective: Studies based on accident statistics generally suggest that the presence of a passenger reduces adult drivers' accident risk. However, passengers have been reported to be a source of distraction in a remarkable portion of distraction-related crashes. Although the effect of passengers on driving performance has been studied extensively, few studies have focused on how a child passenger affects the driver.

?A child in a car is a potential distractor for parents, especially for mothers of small children, who often suffer from sleep deficit. The aim of this study was to examine how the presence of child passengers of different ages is associated with a higher driver culpability, which was expected due to child-related distraction and fatigue.

Methods: The analysis was based on the comprehensive data of fatal crashes studied in-depth by multidisciplinary road accident investigation teams in Finland during 1988–2012. Teams determine the primary party who had the most crucial effect on the origin of the event. We define the primary party as culpable and the others involved as nonculpable drivers. The culpability rate was defined as the percentage of culpable drivers and rates were compared for drivers with a child/teen passenger aged 0–17 years (N = 348), with an adult passenger without children (N = 324), and when driving alone (N = 579), grouped by child age and driver gender.

?Drivers with specific risk-related behavior (substantial speeding, driving when intoxicated, unbelted, or without a license) were excluded from the analyses, in order to make the drivers with and without children comparable. Only drivers 26–47 years old were included, representing parents with children 0–9 years of age.

Results: Male drivers were less often culpable with 0- to 17-year-old passengers in the car than alone or with adults. This was not the case with female drivers. The gender difference in culpability was most marked with small children age 0–4 years. Female drivers' culpability rate with a 0- to 4-year-old child passenger was higher and male drivers' culpability rate was lower compared to drivers without passengers or with only adult passengers.

Conclusion: The results indicate that female drivers are at higher risk of crashes than male drivers when driving with small children. Further research is needed to replicate this finding and to determine causal mechanisms.     

Pediatric electric bicycle injuries and comparison to other pediatric traffic injuries

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of demographics, injury characteristics and hospital resource utilization of significant pediatric electric bicycle (e-bike) injuries leading to hospitalization following an emergency department visit in comparison to pediatric injuries caused by other traffic related mechanisms.

Methods: A retrospective review of all pediatric traffic injury hospitalizations following an emergency department visit to a level I trauma center between October 2014 and September 2016 was conducted. Data regarding age, sex, number of computed tomography (CT) scans obtained, number of major procedures, length of hospital stay (LOS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), and number of injuries per patient were collected and compared between e-bike injuries and other traffic injuries.

Results: Three hundred thirty-seven admissions were analyzed: 46 (14%) were due to e-bike injuries (29% of patients >12 years). Age, proportion of brain injuries, and use of CT were significantly increased compared to mechanical bicycle injuries (13.1?±?3.4 vs. 10.6?±?3.6, 13% vs. 3%, 1 [0–3] vs. 1 [0–1], P < .01, P = .03, P = .05). Age, LOS, and use of CT were significantly increased compared to injuries caused to automobile passengers (13.1?±?3.4 vs. 7.4?±?5.3, 1 [1–3] vs. 1 [1–2], 1 [0–3] vs. 0 [0–1], P < .01, P = .03, P = .01), as well as ISS and number of injuries per patient (P = .04, P < .01). Injuries caused by e-bikes were similar to injuries caused to pedestrians, except for age (13.1?±?3.4 vs. 8.5?±?3.7, P < .01). Multivariable analysis revealed a significant association between mechanism of injury and ISS, with increased ISS among e-bike injuries compared to mecahnical bike injuries (OR 2.56, CI 1.1–5.88, P = 0.03) and automobile injuries (OR 4.16, CI 1.49–12.5, (P < .01).

Conclusion: E-bikes are a significant cause of severe injury in children compared to most other traffic injuries, particularly in older children.     

Evaluation of interventions to make top tether hardware more visible during child restraint system (CRS) installations

Objectives: The objective of the study is to determine whether specific child restraint system (CRS) or vehicle conditions improve top tether attachment rates during volunteer installations.

Methods: A factorial randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate 4 different experimental categories: (1) Color of tether adjuster casing (black or red), (2) labeling on tether adjuster casing (labeled with “Tether: Use for forward-facing” or unlabeled), (3) storage location of tether (bundled in a rubber band on the back of CRS or Velcroed over the forward-facing belt path), and (4) labeling in vehicle (labeled under head restraint and below anchor or unlabeled). Ninety-six volunteers were randomly assigned to one combination of conditions. One installation per volunteer was completed. The primary outcome measure was acceptable attachment of the top tether to the tether anchor. The secondary outcome measure was overall secureness of the installation. Pearson’s chi-square tests were used to identify significant predictors of acceptable outcomes and logistic regression was used to investigate interaction effects.

Results: A total of 66/96 subjects (68.8%) attached the top tether in an acceptable manner, with either zero errors (n?=?50) or minor errors (n?=?16). A total of 30/96 subjects (31.2%) had unacceptable tether outcomes, with either major errors (n?=?10) or nonuse the tether at all (n?=?20). None of the 4 experimental categories significantly affected tether outcomes. Subjects who opted to install the CRS with the lower anchors (LAs) had higher rates of acceptable tether attachment compared to subjects who installed using the seat belt or those who used both LA and seat belt together (χ² = 6.792, P = .034). Tether outcomes were not correlated with previous CRS experience, use of instruction manual(s), age, or sex. Only 15.6% of subjects produced overall correct and tight installations. Of those who used the seat belt in some manner, 70.2% neglected to switch the retractor into locking mode.

Conclusions: Conditions in this study including tether color, tether labeling, storage location, and vehicle labeling did not significantly affect tether attachment rates. High rates of tether misuse and nonuse warrant further exploration to find effective solutions to this usability problem.     

Emergency department visits by pediatric patients sustained as a passenger on a motorcycle

Objective: Currently only 5 out of the 50 states in the United States have laws restricting the age of passengers permitted to ride on a motorcycle. This study sought to characterize the visits by patients under the age of 16 to U.S. emergency departments (EDs) for injuries sustained as a passenger on a motorcycle.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, data were obtained from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) for the years 2006 to 2011. Pediatric patients who were passengers on a motorcycle that was involved in a crash were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) External Cause of Injury codes. We also examined gender, age, disposition, regional differences, common injuries, and charges.

Results: Between 2006 and 2011 there were an estimated 9,689 visits to U.S. EDs by patients under the age of 16 who were passengers on a motorcycle involved in a crash. The overall average patient age was 9.4 years, and they were predominately male (54.5%). The majority (85%) of these patients were treated and released. The average charges for discharged patients were $2,116.50 and amounted to roughly $17,500,000 during the 6 years. The average cost for admission was $51,446 per patient and totaled over $54 million. The most common primary injuries included superficial contusions; sprains and strains; upper limb fractures; open wounds of head, neck, and trunk; and intracranial injuries.

Conclusion: Although there were only about 9,700 visits to U.S. EDs for motorcycle crashes involving passengers less than 16 years old for 2006 to 2011, the total cost of visits that resulted in either ED discharge or hospital admission amounted to over $71 million.     

Differences in the kinematics of booster-seated pediatric occupants using two different car seats

Objective: The objective of this article is to compare the performance of forward-facing child restraint systems (CRS) mounted on 2 different seats.

Methods: Two different anthropomorphic test device (ATD) sizes (P3 and P6), using the same child restraint system (a non-ISOFIX high-back booster seat), were exposed to the ECE R44 regulatory deceleration pulse in a deceleration sled. Two different seats (seat A, seat B) were used. Three repetitions per ATD and mounting seat were done, resulting in a total of 12 sled crashes. Dummy sensors measured the head tri-axial acceleration and angular rate and the thorax tri-axial acceleration, all acquired at 10,000 Hz. A high-speed video camera recorded the impact at 1,000 frames per second. The 3D kinematics of the head and torso of the ATDs were captured using a high-speed motion capture system (1,000 Hz). A pair-matched statistical analysis compared the outcomes of the tests using the 2 different seats.

Results: Statistically significant differences in the kinematic response of the ATDs associated with the type of seat were observed. The maximum 3 ms peak of the resultant head acceleration was higher on seat A for the P3 dummy (54.5 ± 1.9 g vs. 44.2 ± 0.5 g; P =.012) and for the P6 dummy (56.0 ± 0.8 g vs. 51.7 ± 1.2 g; P =.015). The peak belt force was higher on seat A than on seat B for the P3 dummy (5,488.0 ± 198.0 N vs. 4,160.6 ± 63.6 N; P =.008) and for the P6 dummy (7,014.0 ± 271.0 N vs. 5,719.3 ± 37.4 N; P =.015). The trajectory of the ATD head was different between the 2 seats in the sagittal, transverse, and frontal planes.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the overall response of the booster-seated occupant exposed to the same impact conditions was different depending on the seat used regardless of the size of the ATD. The differences observed in the response of the occupants between the 2 seats can be attributed to the differences in cushion stiffness, seat pan geometry, and belt geometry. However, these results were obtained for 2 particular seat models and a specific CRS and therefore cannot be directly extrapolated to the generality of vehicle seats and CRS.     

The Influence of Enhanced Side Impact Protection on Kinematics and Injury Measures of Far- or Center-Seated Children in Forward-Facing Child Restraints

Objective: To evaluate the influence of forward-facing child restraint systems’ (FFCRSs) side impact structure, such as side wings, on the head kinematics and response of a restrained, far- or center-seated 3-year-old anthropomorphic test device (ATD) in oblique sled tests.

Methods: Sled tests were conducted utilizing an FFCRS with large side wings and with the side wings removed. The CRS were attached via LATCH on 2 different vehicle seat fixtures—a small SUV rear bench seat and minivan rear bucket seat—secured to the sled carriage at 20° from lateral. Four tests were conducted on each vehicle seat fixture, 2 for each FFCRS configuration. A Q3s dummy was positioned in FFCRS according to the CRS owner's manual and FMVSS 213 procedures. The tests were conducted using the proposed FMVSS 213 side impact pulse. Three-dimensional motion cameras collected head excursion data. Relevant data collected during testing included the ATD head excursions, head accelerations, LATCH belt loads, and neck loads.

Results: Results indicate that side wings have little influence on head excursions and ATD response. The median lateral head excursion was 435 mm with side wings and 443 mm without side wings. The primary differences in head response were observed between the 2 vehicle seat fixtures due to the vehicle seat head restraint design. The bench seat integrated head restraint forced a tether routing path over the head restraint. Due to the lateral crash forces, the tether moved laterally off the head restraint reducing tension and increasing head excursion (477 mm median). In contrast, when the tether was routed through the bucket seat's adjustable head restraint, it maintained a tight attachment and helped control head excursion (393 mm median).

Conclusion: This testing illustrated relevant side impact crash circumstances where side wings do not provide the desired head containment for a 3-year-old ATD seated far-side or center in FFCRS. The head appears to roll out of the FFCRS even in the presence of side wings, which may expose the occupant to potential head impact injuries. We postulate that in a center or far-side seating configuration, the absence of door structure immediately adjacent to the CRS facilitates the rotation and tipping of the FFCRS toward the impact side and the roll-out of the head around the side wing structure. Results suggest that other prevention measures, in the form of alternative side impact structure design, FFCRS vehicle attachment, or shared protection between the FFCRS and the vehicle, may be necessary to protect children in oblique side impact crashes.     

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.     

Child restraint use and parental perceptions of comfort

Objective: Suboptimal child restraint use includes incorrect and/or inappropriate restraint use and increases the risk of injury. Comfort has been suggested as an important factor impacting on optimal use of restraints by children. This article aims to examine the relationships between parent reported comfort and restraint misuse and age-appropriate restraint choice.

Methods: This is an analysis of data from a cross sectional observation study of child restraint use in New South Wales. Logistic regression was used to model the relationship between parent-reported comfort and restraint misuse and age-appropriate restraint choice.

Results: There was no significant relationship between either parent-reported comfort and restraint misuse or parent-reported comfort and age-appropriate restraint choice.

Conclusions: Parent perceptions of comfort of children in child restraints do not appear to be associated with incorrect child restraint use or age appropriate restraint choice. It is possible that the actual comfort of the child may be related to incorrect use but this remains to be tested. Further investigation of the relationship between parent-perceived comfort and the actual comfort of the child, as well as the impact of child comfort on optimal child restraint use is warranted.     

The effect of correct cross-chest clip use on injury outcomes in young children during motor vehicle crashes

Objective: Traffic crashes have high mortality and morbidity for young children. Though many specialized child restraint systems improve injury outcomes, no large-scale studies have investigated the cross-chest clip's role during a crash, despite concerns in some jurisdictions about the potential for neck contact injuries from the clips. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cross-chest clip use and injury outcomes in children between 0 and 4 years of age.

Methods: Child passengers between 0 and 4 years of age were selected from the NASS-CDS data sets (2003–2014). Multiple regression analysis was used to model injury outcomes while controlling for age, crash severity, crash direction, and restraint type. The primary outcomes were overall Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) 2+ injury, and the presence of any neck injury.

Results: Across all children aged 0–4 years, correct chest clip use was associated with decreased Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injury (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21–0.91) and was not associated with neck injury. However, outcomes varied by age. In children <12 months old, chest clip use was associated with decreased AIS 2+ injury (OR = 0.09, 95% CI, 0.02–0.44). Neck injury (n = 7, all AIS 1) for this age group only occurred with correct cross-chest clip use. For 1- to 4-year-old children, cross-chest clip use had no association with AIS 2+ injury, and correct use significantly decreased the odds of neck injury (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27–0.87) compared to an incorrectly used or absent cross-chest clip. No serious injuries were directly caused by the chest clips.

Conclusions: Correct cross-chest clip use appeared to reduce injury in crashes, and there was no evidence of serious clip-induced injury in children in 5-point harness restraints.