Compatibility of booster seats and vehicles in the U.S. market

Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze booster and rear vehicle seat dimensions to identify the most frequent compatibility problems.

Methods: Measurements were collected from 40 high-back and backless boosters and 95 left rear and center rear row seating positions in 50 modern vehicles. Dimensions were compared for 3,800 booster/vehicle seat combinations. For validation and estimation of tolerance and correction factors, 72 booster installations were physically completed and compared with measurement-based compatibility predictions. Dimensions were also compared to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) volumetric envelopes of forward-facing child restraints and boosters.

Results: Seat belt buckles in outboard positions accommodated the width of boosters better than center positions (success rates of 85.4 and 34.7%, respectively). Adequate head restraint clearance occurred in 71.9 to 77.2% of combinations, depending on the booster's head support setting. Booster recline angles aligned properly with vehicle seat cushion angles in 71.5% of combinations. In cases of poor angle alignment, booster angles were more obtuse than the vehicle seat angles 97.7% of the time. Head restraint interference exacerbated angle alignment issues. Data indicate success rates above 90% for boosters being fully supported by the length of the seat cushion and for adequate height clearance with the vehicle roofline. Comparison to ISO envelopes indicates that most boosters on the U.S. market are taller and angled more obtusely than ISO target envelopes.

Conclusions: This study quantifies some of the common interferences between boosters and vehicles that may complicate booster usage. Data are useful for design and to prioritize specific problem areas.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of LATCH versus Available Seatbelt Installation of Rear Facing Child Restraint Systems on Head Injury Criteria for 6 Month Old Infants in Rear End Collisions

Objective: The Lower Anchor and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH) system was introduced in vehicles made after September 1, 2002 and intended to make installation of rear and forward-facing child safety seats easier. Due to the lack of rear impact testing of RFCRS required per the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), the purpose of this study was to explore the effects, if any, of installation method of RFCRS on the performance of commonly purchased makes and models of RFCRS. Specifically, we hypothesize that in a 48 km/h (29.8 MPH) rear-end collision, installation of RFCRS using the LATCH system will result in higher Head Injury Criteria (HIC) values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (Emergency Locking Retractor - ELR or Automatic Locking Retractor - ALR).

Methods: The test matrix included 36 rear impact sled tests conducted using 3 installation methods on 3 models of RFCRS: the Graco SnugRide® with and without the base, the Britax Chaperone with base-mounted anti-rebound bar, and the Evenflo Tribute®, a model of convertible rearward/forward facing restraint system used in the rearward facing mode. The seats were installed using the LATCH system, ELR lap/shoulder belts, or ALR lap/shoulder belts in seating positions 4 and 6 on a vehicle buck mounted to the sled test base. The infant seat and 6 month old CRABI anthropometric test device (ATD) installation methods were in accordance with standards set forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. All tests were conducted on pneumatic controlled acceleration sled (HYGE, Inc., PA, USA) at 48 km/h.

Results: Installation of infant seat type RFCRS using the LATCH system resulted in higher HIC₁₅ values when compared to using the available lap/shoulder seatbelt (ELR or ALR). The mean HIC₁₅ values were most severe when infant seat type RFCRS were installed using LATCH (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 394 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 133) compared to using either ELR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 218 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 65) or ALR lap/shoulder belts (Graco SnugRide® HIC₁₅ = 194 and Britax Chaperone HIC₁₅ = 78). The installation method did not result in a statistically significant difference in HIC for the convertible type RFCRS (Evenflo Tribute®). In many of the tests, the ATD's head struck the seatback in which the RFCRS was installed. These head strikes resulted in the higher HIC₁₅ scores recorded throughout the testing.

Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that LATCH does not offer equal protection to lap/shoulder belts from head injuries in rear impacts when used with infant seat type RFCRS.     

The Scientific Basis of Marine Pollution Prevention Strategies

Abstract

Prevention of marine pollution, particularly in semi-enclosed seas, embayments and areas with limited exchange of water, requires a well conceived and harmonized legal system, specified standards, a monitoring programme, and effective control and enforcement capabilities. This comprehensive approach is often called a strategy. Three generations of strategies have been devised and applied historically in Europe and North America, each a step further in integrating environmental protection, technical advancement and economic capabilities. the overpowering socio-economic problems of transition from a centrally planned to a market economy, a task facing a dozen central and eastern European coastal states, compound the problem of application of an integrated approach.

No management strategy can achieve its set goals unless based on scientific evidence. the data base has to offer information on two basic questions, one specific and one of a general nature.

The specific question is: Has the area under consideration some features, an activity, or one or more living species, which must be protected at any cost? the answer to this question will invoke the precautionary principle into strategic considerations, and leads to the general question: What is the carrying (= assimilative or environmental) capacity for each activity and for the discharge of each contaminant into the impacted area? Answers to these questions lead to the choice of the strategy for environmental management.     

Self-Reported Seat Belt Use in Four Countries: A Telephone Survey

A telephone survey was conducted in four countries in November 1998 to compare drivers in the United States with those in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom regarding their attitudes toward seat belts and belt use laws. More than 90 percent of the 2251 respondents said they thought seat belts are effective, but self-reported belt use was significantly lower in the United States than in the other countries. Respondents in Australia and the United Kingdom had similar views about what they thought were important reasons for using seat belts and had the highest self-reported use. Reasons given for using belts by Canadian and US respondents were quite similar to one another, yet US respondents had significantly lower self-reported use rates, a difference thought to be due to vigorous enforcement of the law in Canada. US drivers were less likely than Australian and UK drivers to say they used belts out of habit, to avoid a ticket, or because it is required by law and more likely to say they used belts for situational reasons. US drivers were least likely to be in favor of belt use laws. Canadian drivers reported the most experience being checked by police for belt use and were most likely to think that nonusers would be caught. US drivers in primary enforcement jurisdictions were more likely than those in secondary jurisdictions to think that drivers not using belts would be caught and more likely to say they always used belts. Results of this survey indicate that seat belt use in the United States could be increased by adoption of primary enforcement laws and highly visible enforcement programs of the type used in Canada, and that seat belt use could be increased in all countries by increasing the penalties for nonuse.