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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

The influence of personal protection equipment,occupant body size,and restraint system on the frontal impact responses of Hybrid III ATDs in tactical vehicles

Objective: Although advanced restraint systems, such as seat belt pretensioners and load limiters, can provide improved occupant protection in crashes, such technologies are currently not utilized in military vehicles. The design and use of military vehicles presents unique challenges to occupant safety—including differences in compartment geometry and occupant clothing and gear—that make direct application of optimal civilian restraint systems to military vehicles inappropriate. For military vehicle environments, finite element (FE) modeling can be used to assess various configurations of restraint systems and determine the optimal configuration that minimizes injury risk to the occupant. The models must, however, be validated against physical tests before implementation. The objective of this study was therefore to provide the data necessary for FE model validation by conducting sled tests using anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs). A secondary objective of this test series was to examine the influence of occupant body size (5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male), military gear (helmet/vest/tactical assault panels), seat belt type (3-point and 5-point), and advanced seat belt technologies (pretensioner and load limiter) on occupant kinematics and injury risk in frontal crashes.

Methods: In total, 20 frontal sled tests were conducted using a custom sled buck that was reconfigurable to represent both the driver and passenger compartments of a light tactical military vehicle. Tests were performed at a delta-V of 30 mph and a peak acceleration of 25 g. The sled tests used the Hybrid III 5th percentile female, 50th percentile male, and 95th percentile male ATDs outfitted with standard combat boots and advanced combat helmets. In some tests, the ATDs were outfitted with additional military gear, which included an improved outer tactical vest (IOTV), IOTV and squad automatic weapon (SAW) gunner with a tactical assault panel (TAP), or IOTV and rifleman with TAP. ATD kinematics and injury outcomes were determined for each test.

Results: Maximum excursions were generally greater in the 95th percentile male compared to the 50th percentile male ATD and in ATDs wearing TAP compared to ATDs without TAP. Pretensioners and load limiters were effective in decreasing excursions and injury measures, even when the ATD was outfitted in military gear.

Conclusions: ATD injury response and kinematics are influenced by the size of the ATD, military gear, and restraint system. This study has provided important data for validating FE models of military occupants, which can be used for design optimization of military vehicle restraint systems.     

Thoracic and lumbar spine responses in high-speed rear sled tests

Objective: This study analyzed thoracic and lumbar spine responses with in-position and out-of-position (OOP) seated dummies in 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled tests with conventional and all-belts-to-seat (ABTS) seats. Occupant kinematics and spinal responses were determined with modern (≥2000 MY), older (<2000 MY), and ABTS seats.

Methods: The seats were fixed in a sled buck subjected to a 40.2 km/h (25 mph) rear sled test. The pulse was a 15 g double-peak acceleration with 150 ms duration. The 50th percentile Hybrid III was lap–shoulder belted in the FMVSS 208 design position or OOP, including leaning forward and leaning inboard and forward. There were 26 in-position tests with 11 <2000 MY, 8 ≥2000 MY, and 7 ABTS and 14 OOP tests with 6 conventional and 8 ABTS seats. The dummy was fully instrumented. This study addressed the thoracic and lumbar spine responses. Injury assessment reference values are not approved for the thoracic and lumbar spine. Conservative thresholds exist. The peak responses were normalized by a threshold to compare responses. High-speed video documented occupant kinematics.

Results: The extension moments were higher in the thoracic than lumbar spine in the in-position tests. For <2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 76.8 ± 14.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 50.5 ± 17.9%. For the ≥2000 MY seats, the thoracic extension moment was 54.2 ± 26.6% of threshold and the lumbar extension moment was 49.8 ± 27.7%. ABTS seats provided similar thoracic and lumbar responses. Modern seat designs lowered thoracic and lumbar responses. For example, the 1996 Taurus had ?1,696 N anterior lumbar shear force and ?205.2 Nm extension moment. There was ?1,184 N lumbar compression force and 1,512 N tension. In contrast, the 2015 F-150 had ?500 N shear force and ?49.7 Nm extension moment. There was ?839 N lumbar compression force and 535 N tension. On average, the 2015 F-150 had 40% lower lumbar spine responses than the 1996 Taurus. The OOP tests had similar peak lumbar responses; however, they occurred later due to the forward lean of the dummy.

Conclusions: The design and performance of seats have significantly changed over the past 20 years. Modern seats use a perimeter frame allowing the occupant to pocket into the seatback. Higher and more forward head restraints allow a stronger frame because the head, neck, and torso are more uniformly supported with the seat more upright in severe rear impacts. The overall effect has been a reduction in thoracic and lumbar loads and risks for injury.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

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.     

Difference in dummy responses in matched side impact tests of vehicles with and without side airbags

Objective: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) high-hooded side impacts were analyzed for matched vehicle tests with and without side airbags. The comparison provides a measure of the effectiveness of side airbags in reducing biomechanical responses for near-side occupants struck by trucks, SUVs, and vans at 50 km/h.

Method: The IIHS moving deformable barrier (MDB) uses a high-hooded barrier face. It weighs 1,500 kg and impacts the driver side perpendicular to the vehicle at 50 km/h. SID IIs dummies are placed in the driver and left second-row seats. They represent fifth percentile female occupants.

IIHS tests were reviewed for matches with one test with a side airbag and another without it in 2003–2007 model year (MY) vehicles. Four side airbag systems were evaluated: (1) curtain and torso side airbags, (2) head and torso side airbag, (3) curtain side airbag, and (4) torso side airbag.

There were 24 matched IIHS vehicle tests: 13 with and without a curtain and torso side airbags, 4 with and without a head and torso side airbag, 5 with and without a side curtain airbag, and 2 with and without a torso airbag. The head, chest, and pelvis responses were compared for each match and the average difference was determined across all matches for a type of side airbag.

Results: The average reduction in head injury criterion (HIC) was 68 ± 16% (P < .001) with curtain and torso side airbags compared to the HIC without side airbags. The average HIC was 296 with curtain and torso side airbags and 1,199 without them. The viscous response (VC) was reduced 54 ± 19% (P < .005) with curtain and torso side airbags. The combined acetabulum and ilium force (7 ± 15%) and pelvic acceleration (?2 ± 17%) were essentially similar in the matched tests.

The head and torso side airbag reduced HIC by 42 ± 30% (P < .1) and VC by 32 ± 26% compared to vehicles without a side airbag. The average HIC was 397 with the side head and torso airbag compared to 729 without it. The curtain airbag and torso airbag only showed lower head responses but essentially no difference in the chest and pelvis responses.

Conclusion: The curtain and torso side airbags effectively reduced biomechanical responses for the head and chest in 50 km/h side impacts with a high-hooded deformable barrier. The reductions in the IIHS tests are directionally the same as estimated fatality reductions in field crashes reported by NHTSA for side airbags.     

Low Back Muscle Activity in an Automobile Seat with a Lumbar Massage System

This investigation was conducted to determine the effects of a massaging lumbar support system on low back muscle activity. The apparatus included a luxury-level automobile seat, six 10-mm diameter bipolar surface electrodes, an amplifier, an analog-to-digital conversion board, data acquisition software, and a personal computer. Six experimental conditions, each involving a variation of massage time, were considered. The dependent variable was the change in the root mean square variation of the EMG signal. One minute of lumbar massage every 5 min was found to have a beneficial effect on low back muscle activity (as compared to no massage). This may prove to be an extremely important result in the quest to combat low back pain attributable to automobile seating.     

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.     

大客车正面碰撞乘客约束系统仿真分析

为探究约束系统在全承载客车正面碰撞事故中对乘客损伤的影响,利用有限元分析软件LS_DYNA建立某大客车正面碰撞仿真模型,并开展整车50 km/h正面100％重叠碰撞固定刚性壁障试验;从车身变形、加速度曲线和乘员损伤等3方面验证仿真模型;基于已验证的仿真模型,开展不同座椅间距、车厢位置及安全带类型的乘员运动响应和损伤等综...     

Airbag Technology in Australian Passenger Cars: Preliminary Results from Real World Crash Investigations

Airbags are expected to reduce vehicle occupant injuries, primarily by preventing head and chest contacts with the steering wheel and instrument panel. To date, however, there has been little evidence of airbag effectiveness in terms of field accident investigations. This paper presents some preliminary results from an ongoing case-control study of crashed vehicles equipped with Australian airbag technology (supplementary airbags in combination with seatbelt webbing clamps). Vehicles were inspected and occupants interviewed according to the National Accident Sampling System (NASS). Data were available for 140 belted drivers involved in frontal crashes (delta-V between 21 and 60 km/h), including 71 airbag and 69 control cases. Analyses revealed significant reductions in the cost of injury and a strong indication of a redaction in overall injury severity among the airbag cases. Indications of airbag benefits were also found in terms of a redaction in the probability of sustaining a moderate and severe injury. Some evidence was found for an increase in minor injuries among the airbag cases. As expected, airbag technology seems to be reducing head, face and chest injuries, particularly those of at least a moderate severity. These results are compared with recent overseas findings.     

Potential of a Precrash Lateral Occupant Movement in Side Collisions of (Electric) Minicars

Objective: In minicars, the survival space between the side structure and occupant is smaller than in conventional cars. This is an issue in side collisions. Therefore, in this article a solution is studied in which a lateral seat movement is imposed in the precrash phase. It generates a pre-acceleration and an initial velocity of the occupant, thus reducing the loads due to the side impact.

Methods: The assessment of the potential is done by numerical simulations and a full-vehicle crash test. The optimal parameters of the restraint system including the precrash movement, time-to-fire of head and side airbag, etc., are found using metamodel-based optimization methods by minimizing occupant loads according to European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP).

Results: The metamodel-based optimization approach is able to tune the restraint system parameters. The numerical simulations show a significant averaged reduction of 22.3% in occupant loads.

Conclusion: The results show that the lateral precrash occupant movement offers better occupant protection in side collisions.     

The potential of vehicle and road infrastructure interventions in fatal bicyclist accidents on Swedish roads—What can in-depth studies tell us?

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this article is to describe the characteristics of fatal crashes with bicyclists on Swedish roads in rural and urban areas and to investigate the potential of bicycle helmets and different vehicle and road infrastructure interventions to prevent them. The study has a comprehensive approach to provide road authorities and vehicle manufacturers with recommendations for future priorities.

Methods: The Swedish Transport Administration’s (STA) in-depth database of fatal crashes was used for case-by-case analysis of fatal cycling accidents (2006–2016) on rural (n?=?82) and urban (n?=?102) roads. The database consists of information from the police, medical journals, autopsy reports, accident analyses performed by STA, and witness statements. The potential of helmet use and various vehicle and road infrastructure safety interventions was determined retrospectively for each case by analyzing the chain of events leading to the fatality. The potential of vehicle safety countermeasures was analyzed based on prognoses on their implementation rates in the Swedish vehicle fleet.

Results: The most common accident scenario on rural roads was that the bicyclist was struck while cycling along the side of the road. On urban roads, the majority of accidents occurred in intersections. Most accidents involved a passenger car, but heavy trucks were also common, especially in urban areas. Most accidents occurred in daylight conditions (73%). Almost half (46%) of nonhelmeted bicyclists would have survived with a helmet. It was assessed that nearly 60% of the fatal accidents could be addressed by advanced vehicle safety technologies, especially autonomous emergency braking with the ability to detect bicyclists. With regard to interventions in the road infrastructure, separated paths for bicyclists and bicycle crossings with speed calming measures were found to have the greatest safety potential. Results indicated that 91% of fatally injured bicyclists could potentially be saved with known techniques. However, it will take a long time for such technologies to be widespread.

Conclusions: The majority of fatally injured bicyclists studied could potentially be saved with known techniques. A speedy implementation of important vehicle safety systems is recommended. A fast introduction of effective interventions in the road infrastructure is also necessary, preferably with a plan for prioritization.     

Seat belt use and fit among drivers aged 75 years and older in their own vehicles

Objective: This article aims to describe seat belt wearing patterns and quality of seat belt fit among drivers aged 75 years and older. A secondary aim is to explore associations between body shape, comfort, and seat belt use patterns.

Methods: This is an observation and survey study of a cohort of 380 drivers aged 75 years and over. During home visits, photographs were taken of the drivers in their vehicles for later analysis of belt fit and a short survey was also administered to collect demographic data and information about seat belt use and comfort. Seat belt fit and use of belt and seat accessories were analyzed from the photographs.

Results: Data from 367 participants with photographs were analyzed. Whereas 97% reported using a seat belt and 90% reported their seat belt to be comfortable, 21% reported repositioning their seat belt to improve comfort. Good sash and lap belt fit were achieved in 53 and 59% of participants, respectively, but only 35% achieved overall good fit. Both poor sash and lap belt fit were observed in 23% of participants. Drivers who were in the obese category had over twice the odds (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2–4.1) of having a poor lap belt fit than those in the normal body mass index [BMI] range, and drivers who were overweight had 1.8 times the odds (95% CI, 1.1–2.9) of having poor lap belt fit. Older females also had twice the odds (95% CI, 1.3–3.5) of poor lap belt fit compared to older males, regardless of BMI. Sash belt fit did not vary significantly by BMI, stature, or gender. However older drivers who reported that they had not made any adjustments to the D-ring height had 1.7 times the odds of having poor sash belt fit than those who made adjustments (1.2–2.9). Females were 7.3 times more likely to report comfort problems than males (95% CI, 3.2, 16.3) but there was no association between reported comfort and BMI or seat belt fit. Drivers who reported comfort problems had 6 times the odds (3.2–13.6) of also reporting active repositioning of the belt.

Conclusions: The results suggest that older drivers face challenges in achieving comfortable and correct seat belt fit. This may have a negative impact on crash protection. Belt fit problems appear to be associated with body shape, particularly high BMI and gender. There is a need for further investigation of comfort accessories; in the interim, older drivers and occupants should be encouraged to use features such as D-ring adjusters to improve sash belt fit.     

Experimental investigation of the effect of occupant characteristics on contemporary seat belt payout behavior in frontal impacts

Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of the occupant characteristics on seat belt force vs. payout behavior based on experiment data from different configurations in frontal impacts.

Methods: The data set reviewed consists of 58 frontal sled tests using several anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) and postmortem human subjects (PMHS), restrained by different belt systems (standard belt, SB; force-limiting belt, FLB) at 2 impact severities (48 and 29 km/h). The seat belt behavior was characterized in terms of the shoulder belt force vs. belt payout behavior. A univariate linear regression was used to assess the factor significance of the occupant body mass or stature on the peak tension force and gross belt payout.

Results: With the SB, the seat belt behavior obtained by the ATDs exhibited similar force slopes regardless of the occupant size and impact severities, whereas those obtained by the PMHS were varied. Under the 48 km/h impact, the peak tension force and gross belt payout obtained by ATDs was highly correlated to the occupant stature (P =.03, P =.02) and body mass (P =.05, P =.04), though no statistical difference with the stature or body mass were noticed for the PMHS (peak force: P =.09, P =.42; gross payout: P =.40, P =.48). With the FLB under the 48 km/h impact, highly linear relationships were noticed between the occupant body mass and the peak tension force (R² = 0.9782) and between the gross payout and stature (R² = 0.9232) regardless of the occupant types.

Conclusions: The analysis indicated that the PMHS characteristics showed a significant influence on the belt response, whereas the belt response obtained with the ATDs was more reproducible. The potential cause included the occupant anthropometry, body mass distribution, and relative motion among body segments specific to the population variance. This study provided a primary data source to understand the biomechanical interaction of the occupant with the restraint system. Further research is necessary to consider these effects in the computational studies and optimized design of the restraint system in a more realistic manner.