Legislating child restraint usage -Its effect on self-reported child restraint use rates in a central city

Objective

To assess the effect of the newly enacted child passenger safety law, Wisconsin Act 106, on self-report of proper restraint usage of children in Milwaukee's central city population.

Method

A prospective, non-randomized study design was used. The settings used were (a) a pediatric urban health center, and (b) two Women, Infants and Children offices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Participants included 11,566 surveys collected over 18 months that spanned the pre-legislation and post-legislation time periods from February 2006 through August 2008.

Results

The study set out to assess appropriate child passenger restraint. The results showed that the changes in adjusted proper restraint usage rates for infants between the pre-law, grace period, and post-fine periods were 94%, 94%, and 94% respectively. For children 1-3 years old, the adjusted proper usage rates were 65%, 63%, and 59%, respectively. And for children 4-7 years old, the rates were 43%, 44% and 42%, respectively. There was a significant increase in premature booster seat use in children who should have been restrained in a rear- or forward-facing car seat (10% pre-law, 12% grace period, 20% post-fine; p < 0.0005). There was no statistically significant change over time in unrestrained children (2.1%, 1.7%, 1.7%, p = 0.7, respectively).

Conclusions

The passage of a strengthened child passenger safety law with fines did not significantly improve appropriate restraint use for 0-7 year olds, and appropriate use in 1-7 year olds remained suboptimal with a majority of urban children inappropriately restrained. Although the number of unrestrained children decreased, we identified an unintended consequence of the legislation - a significant increase in the rate of premature belt-positioning booster seat use among poor, urban children.

Impact on Industry

The design of child restraint systems maximizes protection of the child. Increasing reports of misuse is a call to those who manufacture these child passenger restraints to improve advertising and marketing to the correct age group, ease of installation, and mechanisms to prevent incorrect safety strap and harness placement. To ensure accurate and consistent use on every trip, car seat manufacturers must ensure that best practice recommendations for use as well as age, weight, and height be clearly specified on each child restraint. The authors support the United States Department of Transportation's new consumer program that will assist caregivers in identifying the child seat that will fit in their vehicle. In addition, due to the increase in premature graduation of children into belt-positioning booster seats noted as a result of legislation, promoting and marketing booster seat use for children less than 40 pounds should not be accepted. Child passenger safety technicians must continue to promote best practice recommendations for child passenger restraint use and encourage other community leaders to do the same.     

Association between driver and child passenger restraint: Analysis of community-based observational survey data from 2005 to 2019

Introduction: Crash data suggest an association between driver seatbelt use and child passenger restraint. However, community-based restraint use is largely unknown. We examined the association between driver seatbelt use and child restraint using data from a state-wide observational study. Methods: Data from Iowa Child Passenger Restraint Survey, a representative state-wide survey of adult seat belt use and child passenger safety, were analyzed. A total of 44,996 child passengers age 0–17 years were observed from 2005 to 2019. Information about driver seatbelt use and child restraint was directly observed by surveyors and driver age was reported. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between driver seatbelt use and child restraint adjusting for vehicle type, community size, child seating position, child passenger age, and year. Results: Over the 15-year study period, 4,114 (9.1%) drivers were unbelted, 3,692 (8.2%) children were completely unrestrained, and another 1,601 (3.6%) children were improperly restrained (analyzed as unrestrained). About half of unbelted drivers had their child passengers unrestrained (51.8%), while nearly all belted drivers had their child passengers properly restrained (92.3%). Compared with belted drivers, unbelted drivers had an 11-fold increased odds of driving an unrestrained child passenger (OR = 11.19, 95%CI = 10.36, 12.09). The association between driver seatbelt use and child restraint was much stronger among teenage drivers. Unbelted teenage drivers were 33-fold more likely (OR = 33.34, 95%CI = 21.11, 52.64) to have an unrestrained child passenger. Conclusion: These data suggest that efforts to increase driver seatbelt use may also have the added benefit of increasing child restraint use. Practical applications: Enforcement of child passenger laws and existing education programs for new drivers could be leveraged to increase awareness of the benefits of seatbelt use for both drivers themselves and their occupants. Interventions aimed at rural parents could emphasize the importance of child safety restraints.     

Child passenger restraint use and emergency department--reported injuries: a special study using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-All Injury Program, 2004

INTRODUCTION: In 2004, more than 180,000 child passengers aged 相似文献   

Use of child safety seats and booster seats in the United States: A comparison of parent/caregiver-reported and observed use estimates

Background: Motor-vehicles crashes are a leading cause of death among children. Age- and size-appropriate restraint use can prevent crash injuries and deaths among children. Strategies to increase child restraint use should be informed by reliable estimates of restraint use practices. Objective: Compare parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use estimates from the FallStyles and Estilos surveys with the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats (NSUBS). Methods: Estimates of child restraint use from two online, cross-sectional surveys—FallStyles, a survey of U.S. adults, and Estilos, a survey of U.S. Hispanic adults—were compared with observed data collected in NSUBS. Parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ 12 years were asked about the child’s restraint use behaviors in FallStyles and Estilos, while restraint use was observed in NSUBS. Age-appropriate restraint use was defined as rear-facing child safety seat (CSS) use for children aged 0–4 years, forward-facing CSS use for children aged 2–7 years, booster seat use for children aged 5–12 years, and seat belt use for children aged 9–12 years. Age-appropriate restraint users are described by demographic characteristics and seat row, with weighted prevalence and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Results: Overall, child restraint use as reported by parents/caregivers was 90.8% (CI: 87.5–94.1) (FallStyles) and 89.4% (CI: 85.5–93.4) for observed use (NSUBS). Among Hispanic children, reported restraint use was 82.6% (CI: 73.9–91.3) (Estilos) and 84.4% (CI: 79.0–88.6) for observed use (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). For age-appropriate restraint use, estimates ranged from 74.3% (CI: 69.7–79.0) (FallStyles) to 59.7% (CI: 55.0–64.4) (NSUBS), and for Hispanic children, from 71.5% (CI: 62.1–81.0) (Estilos) to 57.2% (CI: 51.2–63.2) (NSUBS, Hispanic children only). Conclusion and Practical Application: Overall estimates of parent/caregiver-reported and observed child restraint use were similar. However, for age-appropriate restraint use, reported use was higher than observed use for most age groups.     

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.     

Field investigation of child restraints in side impact crashes

OBJECTIVE: Various test procedures have been suggested for assessing the protection afforded by child restraints (CRS) in lateral collisions. Analyses of real world crashes can be used to identify relevant characteristics of the child, restraint, collision, and injury mechanisms that should be incorporated into the design of the test procedures as well as in the design of related ATDs and injury metrics. The objective of this work is to use in-depth crash investigations of children restrained in CRS in side impacts to elucidate specific sources and mechanisms of injuries and explore the role of crash severity variables such as magnitude and location of intrusion and specific impact angle. METHODS: Real world crashes involving children restrained in forward facing CRS in side impacts were analyzed from Partners for Child Passenger Safety, an on-going child specific crash surveillance system in which insurance claims are used to identify cases. In-depth crash investigations using standardized protocols were used to calculate the crash severity and determine the mechanisms and sources of the injuries sustained. RESULTS: Cases of 32 children restrained in CRS in 30 side impact crashes were examined. Twenty-five percent sustained AIS 2+ injuries. The most common injuries sustained by children restrained in CRS in side impact crashes were to the face, head, and lower extremity. Characteristics of the crashes that appeared related to injury were intrusion that entered the child's occupant space or caused an interior part of the vehicle to enter the child's occupant space, forward component of the crash, and the rotation of the CRS, restrained by a seat belt, towards the side of the impact. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the injury potential in a laboratory setting for the body regions of common injury, the head, face, and lower extremity, must be explored. Characteristics of a regulatory-based test procedure to assess injury risk should include a frontal component to the crash and intrusion into the occupant's seating position. Design enhancements of the CRS should address rotation during lateral impacts. These results provide guidance to current efforts to design and regulate these restraints for the safety of child passengers in side impacts.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Factors affecting use and nonuse of child safety car seats in Gorgan,Iran

Objective: Motor vehicle accidents, which are among the main causes of child mortality in Iran and the Middle East, impose staggering costs for the community. Ignoring use of safety devices for children in most motor vehicle crashes will lead to death or serious injury. Because few studies have been performed on effective and predictive factors regarding use of child safety seats, the purpose of this study was to examine the factors affecting the use and nonuse of child safety seats, along with the factors that can facilitate how a child safety seat is used.

Method: This study was conducted in the urban area of Gorgan using a questionnaire. Through random selection, 204 parents with at least one child, aged 8?years or younger, reported their knowledge about the benefits of using a child safety seat.

Results: The results showed that 80% of parents never use a child safety seat, and 13% always use a child safety seat. More than 93% thought that it was necessary to make usage of the child safety seat obligatory. In addition, 80% of parents believed that a child safety seat prevents children from injury in crashes. In addition, 38% of parents were not aware of child safety devices and child safety, less than 20% said that they did not use a child safety seat because their spouse did not support its use, and 28% of them thought that a child safety seat does not affect the safety of the child. In general, 91% of parents reported that if child safety seat use were mandated, the frequency of use would increase. A law on the use of child safety seats is a very important variable in their use, which can enhance the chance of using a child safety seat by 6.5 times.

Conclusion: Special instructions should be developed to create incentive strategies for using a child safety seat. Mandating the use of a child safety seat, equipping cars with a child safety seat, encouraging children to use it, and providing continuous education and training are important factors for increasing the use of child safety seats.     

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.     

State-level seat belt use in the United States, 2011–2016: Comparison of self-reported with observed use and use by fatally injured occupants

Introduction: Despite 49 states and the District of Columbia having seat belt laws that permit either primary or secondary enforcement, nearly half of persons who die in passenger vehicle crashes in the United States are unbelted. Monitoring seat belt use is important for measuring the effectiveness of strategies to increase belt use. Objective: Document self-reported seat belt use by state seat belt enforcement type and compare 2016 self-reported belt use with observed use and use among passenger vehicle occupant (PVO) fatalities. Methods: We analyzed the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) self-reported seat belt use data during 2011–2016. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to compare the 2016 BRFSS state estimates with observed seat belt use from state-based surveys and with unrestrained PVO fatalities from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Results: During 2011–2016, national self-reported seat belt use ranged from 86–88%. In 2016, national self-reported use (87%) lagged observed use (90%) by 3 percentage points. By state, the 2016 self-reported use ranged from 64% in South Dakota to 93% in California, Hawaii, and Oregon. Seat belt use averaged 7 percentage points higher in primary enforcement states (89%) than in secondary states (82%). Self-reported state estimates were strongly positively correlated with state observational estimates (r = 0.80) and strongly negatively correlated with the proportion of unrestrained PVO fatalities (r = −0.77). Conclusion: National self-reported seat belt use remained essentially stable during 2011–2016 at around 87%, but large variations existed across states. Practical Applications: If seat belt use in secondary enforcement states matched use in primary enforcement states for 2016, an additional 3.98 million adults would have been belted. Renewed attention to increasing seat belt use will be needed to reduce motor-vehicle fatalities. Self-reported and observational seat belt data complement one another and can aid in designing targeted and multifaceted interventions.     

Investigating traffic fatality trends and restraint use among rear-seat passengers in the United States, 2000–2016

Introduction: Motor-vehicle crash is one of the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States. Previous studies focused on fatalities among drivers and front-seat passengers, with a limited number of studies examining rear-seat passenger fatalities. The objectives of this study were to assess trends in rear-seat passenger motor-vehicle fatalities in the United States from 2000 to 2016 and to identify demographic factors associated with being unrestrained among fatally injured rear-seat passengers. Methods: Rear-seat passenger fatality data were obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database. The fatality rate ratios for overall rear-seat passengers and for different age and sex groups were determined by comparing fatality rates in 2000 and 2016 using random effects models. Risk ratios of being unrestrained for age and sex groups were obtained using general estimating equations. Results: Compared to 2000, the overall rear-seat passenger fatality rate in 2016 decreased by 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39–49%). In particular, the fatality rate among rear-seat passengers decreased more in males than females, and passengers aged 14–19 years experienced a larger decline than all other age groups. Fatally injured male rear-seat passengers had a higher risk of being unrestrained (adjusted risk ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.07) than their female counterparts, and both youngest (≤13 years) and oldest (65–85 years) passengers were less likely to be unrestrained than those aged 20–64 years. Conclusions: Overall, fatality rates among rear-seat passengers have declined, with differential degrees of improvement by age and sex. Practical Applications: Continued restraint use enforcement campaigns targeted at teenagers and males would further preserve them from fatal injuries and improve traffic safety for the overall population.     

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.     

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.     

Parent driver characteristics associated with sub-optimal restraint of child passengers

OBJECTIVES: To identify parent driver demographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with the use of sub-optimal restraints for child passengers under nine years. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using in-depth, validated telephone interviews with parent drivers in a probability sample of 3,818 vehicle crashes involving 5,146 children. Sub-optimal restraint was defined as use of forward-facing child safety seats for infants under one or weighing under 20 lbs, and any seat-belt use for children under 9. RESULTS: Sub-optimal restraint was more common among children under one and between four and eight years than among children aged one to three years (18%, 65%, and 5%, respectively). For children under nine, independent risk factors for sub-optimal restraint were: non-Hispanic black parent drivers (with non-Hispanic white parents as reference, adjusted relative risk, adjusted RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09-1.41); less educated parents (with college graduate or above as reference: high school, adjusted RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.12-1.44; less than high school graduate, adjusted RR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.13-1.63); and lower family income (with $50,000 or more as reference: <$20,000, adjusted RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07-1.40). Multivariate analysis revealed the following independent risk factors for sub-optimal restraint among four-to-eight-year-olds: older parent age, limited education, black race, and income below $20,000. CONCLUSIONS: Parents with low educational levels or of non-Hispanic black background may require additional anticipatory guidance regarding child passenger safety. The importance of poverty in predicting sub-optimal restraint underscores the importance of child restraint and booster seat disbursement and education programs, potentially through Medicaid.     

Reconstruction of crashes involving injured child occupants: the risk of serious injuries associated with sub-optimal restraint use may be reduced by better controlling occupant kinematics

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether injuries to sub-optimally restrained child occupants in real-world crashes were likely to be preventable by alternative restraint usage practices and to assess the usefulness of crash reconstruction for exploring injury mechanisms in child occupants. METHODS: Real-world crashes in which child occupants sustained significant injuries were reconstructed on a laboratory crash sled using the Hybrid III family of child dummies. Alternative restraint scenarios and cases in which children were not seriously injured were also simulated to compare dummy kinematics and dynamic responses in optimal restraint configurations. RESULTS: Restraint misuse was associated with greater motion of the dummy torso and head during crashes, often allowing contact between the child and the vehicle interior, resulting in injury. Poor pre-crash posture for a child inappropriately restrained in an adult belt appeared to worsen the geometry of the sash (shoulder) belt, resulting in a cervical injury due to direct interaction with the belt. Dynamic dummy data did not appear to discriminate between injury and non-injury cases. CONCLUSIONS: Dummy kinematics suggest that injuries in which inappropriate use and misuse were a factor were less likely if the most appropriate restraint was used correctly. Adequately controlling the head and upper body of the child occupant was seen to prevent undesirable interactions with the vehicle interior and restraint system, which were associated with injury in the real world. Neck forces and moments and injury criteria calculated from these did not predict injury reliably.