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.     

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.     

Improving the Chest Protection of Elderly Occupants in Frontal Crashes Using SMART Load Limiters

Objective: To determine whether varying the seat belt load limiter (SBL) according to crash and occupant characteristics could have real-world injury reduction benefits in frontal impacts and, if so, to quantify those benefits.

Methods: Real-world UK accident data were used to identify the target population of vehicle occupants and frontal crash scenarios where improved chest protection could be most beneficial. Generic baseline driver and front passenger numerical models using a 50th percentile dummy were developed with MADYMO software. Simulations were performed where the load limiter threshold was varied in selected frontal impact scenarios. For each SBL setting, restraint performance, dummy kinematics, and injury outcome were studied in 5 different frontal impact types. Thoracic injury predictions were converted into injury probability values using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ age-dependent thoracic risk curves developed and validated based on a methodology proposed by Laituri et al. (2005). Real-world benefit was quantified using the predicted AIS 2+ risk and assuming that an appropriate adaptive system was fitted to all the cars in a real-world sample of recent frontal crashes involving European passenger cars.

Results: From the accident data sample the chest was the most frequently injured body region at an AIS 2+ level in frontal impacts (7% of front seat occupants). The proportion of older vehicle front seat occupants (>64 years) with AIS 2+ injury was also greater than the proportion of younger occupants. Additionally, older occupants were more likely to sustain seat belt–induced serious chest injury in low- and moderate-speed frontal crashes. In both front seating positions, the low SBL provided the best chest injury protection, without increasing the risk to other body regions. In severe impacts, the low SBL allowed the driver to move dangerously close to the steering wheel. Compared to the driver side, greater ride-down space on the passenger side gave a higher potential for using the low SBLs. When applying the AIS 2+ risk reduction findings to the weighted accident data sample, the risk of sustaining an AIS 2+ seat belt injury changed to 0.9, 4.9, and 8.1% for young, mid, and older occupants, respectively, from their actual injury risk of 1.3, 7.6, and 13.1%.

Conclusions: These results suggest the potential for improving the safety of older occupants with the development of smarter restraint systems. This is an important finding because the number of older users is expected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years. The greatest benefits were seen at lower crash severities. This is also important because most real-world crashes occur at lower speeds.     

Occurrence of Serious Injury in Real-World Side Impacts of Vehicles with Good Side-Impact Protection Ratings

Objective: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) introduced its side impact consumer information test program in 2003. Since that time, side airbags and structural improvements have been implemented across the fleet and the proportion of good ratings has increased to 93% of 2012–2014 model year vehicles. Research has shown that drivers of good-rated vehicles are 70% less likely to die in a left-side crash than drivers of poor-rated vehicles. Despite these improvements, side impact fatalities accounted for about one quarter of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities in 2012. This study is a detailed analysis of real-world cases with serious injury resulting from side crashes of vehicles with good ratings in the IIHS side impact test.

Methods: NASS-CDS and Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) were queried for occupants of good-rated vehicles who sustained an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≥ 3 injury in a side-impact crash. The resulting 110 cases were categorized by impact configuration and other factors that contributed to injury. Patterns of impact configuration, restraint performance, and occupant injury were identified and discussed in the context of potential upgrades to the current IIHS side impact test.

Results: Three quarters of the injured occupants were involved in near-side impacts. For these occupants, the most common factors contributing to injury were crash severities greater than the IIHS test, inadequate side-airbag performance, and lack of side-airbag coverage for the injured body region. In the cases where an airbag was present but did not prevent the injury, occupants were often exposed to loading centered farther forward on the vehicle than in the IIHS test. Around 40% of the far-side occupants were injured from contact with the struck-side interior structure, and almost all of these cases were more severe than the IIHS test. The remaining far-side occupants were mostly elderly and sustained injury from the center console, instrument panel, or seat belt. In addition, many far-side occupants were likely out of position due to events preceding the side impact and/or being unbelted.

Conclusion: Individual changes to the IIHS side impact test have the potential to reduce the number of serious injuries in real-world crashes. These include impacting the vehicle farther forward (relevant to 28% of all cases studied), greater test severity (17%), the inclusion of far-side occupants (9%), and more restrictive injury criteria (9%). Combinations of these changes could be more effective.     

Real-World Rib Fracture Patterns in Frontal Crashes in Different Restraint Conditions

Objective: The purpose of this study was to use the detailed medical injury information in the Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network (CIREN) to evaluate patterns of rib fractures in real-world crash occupants in both belted and unbelted restraint conditions. Fracture patterns binned into rib regional levels were examined to determine normative trends associated with belt use and other possible contributing factors.

Methods: Front row adult occupants with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 3+ rib fractures, in frontal crashes with a deployed frontal airbag, were selected from the CIREN database. The circumferential location of each rib fracture (with respect to the sternum) was documented using a previously published method (Ritchie et al. 2006) and digital computed tomography scans. Fracture patterns for different crash and occupant parameters (restraint use, involved physical component, occupant kinematics, crash principal direction of force, and occupant age) were compared qualitatively and quantitatively.

Results: There were 158 belted and 44 unbelted occupants included in this study. For belted occupants, fractures were mainly located near the path of the shoulder belt, with the majority of fractures occurring on the inboard (with respect to the vehicle) side of the thorax. For unbelted occupants, fractures were approximately symmetric and distributed across both sides of the thorax. There were negligible differences in fracture patterns between occupants with frontal (0°) and near side (330° to 350° for drivers; 10° to 30° for passengers) crash principal directions of force but substantial differences between groups when occupant kinematics (and contacts within the vehicle) were considered. Age also affected fracture pattern, with fractures tending to occur more anteriorly in older occupants and more laterally in younger occupants (both belted and unbelted).

Conclusions: Results of this study confirmed with real-world data that rib fracture patterns in unbelted occupants were more distributed and symmetric across the thorax compared to belted occupants in crashes with a deployed frontal airbag. Other factors, such as occupant kinematics and occupant age, also produced differing patterns of fractures. Normative data on rib fracture patterns in real-world occupants can contribute to understanding injury mechanisms and the role of different causation factors, which can ultimately help prevent fractures and improve vehicle safety.     

Census Study of Real-Life Near-Side Crashes with Modern Side Airbag-Equipped Vehicles in the United States

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the crash characteristics, injury distribution, and injury mechanisms for Maximum Abbreviated Injury Score (MAIS) 2+ injured belted, near-side occupants in airbag-equipped modern vehicles. Furthermore, differences in injury distribution for senior occupants compared to non-senior occupants was investigated, as well as whether the near-side occupant injury risk to the head and thorax increases or decreases with a neighboring occupant.

Method: National Automotive Sampling System's Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) data from 2000 to 2012 were searched for all side impacts (GAD L&R, all principal direction of force) for belted occupants in modern vehicles (model year > 1999). Rollovers were excluded, and only front seat occupants over the age of 10 were included. Twelve thousand three hundred fifty-four MAIS 2+ injured occupants seated adjacent to the intruding structure (near-side) and protected by at least one deployed side airbag were studied. To evaluate the injury risk influenced by the neighboring occupant, odds ratio with an induced exposure approach was used.

Result: The most typical crash occurred either at an intersection or in a left turn where the striking vehicle impacted the target vehicle at a 60 to 70° angle, resulting in a moderate change of velocity (delta-V) and intrusion at the B-pillar. The head, thorax, and pelvis were the most frequent body regions with rib fracture the most frequent specific injury. A majority of the head injuries included brain injuries without skull fracture, and non-senior rather than senior occupants had a higher frequency of head injuries on the whole. In approximately 50% of the cases there was a neighboring occupant influencing injury outcome.

Conclusion: Compared to non-senior occupants, the senior occupants sustained a considerably higher rate of thoracic and pelvis injuries, which should be addressed by improved thorax side airbag protection. The influence on near-side occupant injury risk by the neighboring occupant should also be further evaluated. Furthermore, side airbag performance and injury assessments in intersection crashes, especially those involving senior occupants in lower severities, should be further investigated and side impact dummy biofidelity and injury criteria must be determined for these crash scenarios.     

Effect of vehicle and crash factors on older occupants

PROBLEM: The expected substantial increase in people aged 65 or older is important for those concerned about transportation injuries. However, much of the previous research concentrates on older drivers and overlooks the fact that vehicle and crash factors may provide significant explanations of older occupant injury rates. METHOD: Differences across age groups are explored using two nationwide travel surveys, crash involvement, fatalities, and injuries from crash databases and an ordered probit model of injury severity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Two noticeable differences that help explain injury risk are that older people are more likely to travel in passenger cars than younger people who frequently use light trucks, and that seriously injured older occupants are more likely to be involved in side-impact crashes than their younger counterparts. IMPACT: Increased attention to vehicle engagement in side-impact crashes and to vehicle technologies that can help drivers avoid side collisions would be particularly helpful for older occupants.     

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.     

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.     

Factors associated with higher levels of injury severity in occupants of motor vehicles that were severely damaged in traffic crashes in Kentucky, 2000-2001

OBJECTIVES: The majority of motor vehicle occupants who were killed or hospitalized in crashes in Kentucky in 2000-2001 occupied vehicles that were severely damaged in the crash. Even so, overall only a small percentage of all severely damaged vehicle occupants were killed or hospitalized. The purpose was to identify occupant, vehicle, crash, and roadway/environmental factors that were associated with increased risk of severe injury in crashes where the occupant's vehicle was severely damaged. METHODS: This study probabilistically linked Kentucky's statewide motor vehicle crash and inpatient hospital discharge data files for 2000 and 2001, and selected cases representing occupants of vehicles that were reported by police as having either "severe" or "very severe" damage. For occupants who were identified through data linkage as having been hospitalized, the Injury Severity Score (ISS) was calculated using ICDMAP-90 software, and the scores were stratified into the following categories: critical (>24), severe (15-24), moderate (9-14), and mild (<9). We then created an outcome variable, injury severity level, with five levels: killed; hospitalized with at least moderate injuries (ISS = critical, severe, or moderate); hospitalized with mild injuries (ISS = mild); injured according to the police report but not hospitalized; and no apparent injury according to the police report. We performed a stepwise, ordinal logistic regression of injury severity, using independent variables identified from the existing crash literature. RESULTS: Occupant risk factors for higher levels of injury severity selected by the regression were age (risk increased with age, other factors being equal), female gender, restraint non-use, ejection from the vehicle, and driver impairment (by alcohol and/or drugs). Crash risk factors included head-on collision, collision with a fixed object, vehicle rollover, and vehicle fire. Roadway/environmental factors were federal- or state-maintained roadway and posted speed limit 89 kph (55 mph) or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the identified risk factors are explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the strategic plans of key organizations involved in highway safety and injury prevention in Kentucky. Our analysis provides additional evidence of their importance, and confirms that their mitigation will reduce injury severity in crashes involving severe vehicle damage. Additionally, older occupants and female occupants showed increased risks of serious injury, but to our knowledge these factors are not currently addressed in any state plans. An opportunity exists to clarify the nature of these risks through further studies, which might lead to the identification of countermeasures specific to these populations.     

Case study: 128 injured in rollover coach crashes in Sweden—Injury outcome,mechanisms and possible effects of seat belts

The risk for injuries in rollover coach crashes are dependent on whether the occupants are belted or not. However, the influence of the different belt systems for reducing injuries has remained unclear. Since many injuries sustained are caused by impacts with the interior, passenger interactions or ejection through a window, the advantages by proper seat belt systems are evident. In this study, representing the most common serious crash scenario for serious injury, 128 injured in rollover cases were analysed with regard to the injury outcome, mechanisms and the possible injury reduction for occupants when using a safety belt. Furthermore, the different belt systems were compared to explain their contribution to increased safety. Based on medical reports and questioning of the passengers, the injuries sustained are recorded according to the AIS classification. The next step was the identification of the injury mechanisms, using the passenger statements as well as results from numerical occupant simulations. It is important to mention that this study was purely focused on detection of the injury mechanism to avoid the reported injuries. The possibility of additional injuries due to the wearing of a belt were not taken into account. However, the analysis of the 128 injured showed a considerable increase in safety for belted occupants through limiting interior contacts, minimising passenger interaction and reducing the possibility of ejection.     

Lower extremity injuries in children seated in forward facing child restraint systems

OBJECTIVE: The lower extremity is among the most frequently injured body regions for children restrained by forward facing child restraint systems (FFCRS), accounting for 28% of their clinically significant injuries, defined as AIS 2 and greater injuries excluding concussions. Despite the prevalence of these injuries, the current U.S. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard governing FFCRS (FMVSS 213) does not provide a direct assessment of the biomechanical risk of lower extremity fracture nor do the current pediatric test devices provide adequate instrumentation to detect the risk of such injuries. Before improvements can be made to the anthropometric test devices (ATDs) or test procedures to address these limitations, understanding of the sources and mechanisms of these injuries is necessary. Therefore, the objective of this study was to document location, source, and crash circumstances of lower extremity injuries in children seated in FFCRS. METHODS: Utilizing two sources of data, PCPS and CIREN, 20 in-depth investigations of crashes involving children seated in FFCRS with lower extremity injuries were reviewed to determine the nature of the injuries and the circumstances under which they occurred. RESULTS: Injuries below the knee were the most common, particularly to the tibia/fibula, and they most often occurred due to interaction with the vehicle seatback in front of the child's seating position. These injuries were sustained most commonly in frontal impacts although interaction with the seatback also occurred in other crash types. This interaction with the seatback was exacerbated by possible contributing factors such as intrusion of the front seatback into the child's occupant space or FFCRS misuse resulting in increased excursion of the child during impact. CONCLUSIONS: This review of cases of children in FFCRS with AIS 2 and greater lower extremity injury points to the role of the seatback in the occurrence of these injuries, suggesting the need to consider this interaction in the seatback design process and to adequately represent this interaction in regulatory procedures assessing the performance of child restraints.     

The effects of airbags and seatbelts on occupant injury in longitudinal barrier crashes

Introduction

Longitudinal barriers, such as guardrails, are designed to prevent a vehicle that leaves the roadway from impacting a more dangerous object while minimizing the risk of injury to the vehicle occupants. Current full-scale test procedures for these devices do not consider the effect of occupant restraints such as seatbelts and airbags. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which restraints are used or deployed in longitudinal barrier collisions and their subsequent effect on occupant injury.

Methods

Binary logistic regression models were generated to predict occupant injury risk using data from the National Automotive Sampling System / Crashworthiness Data System from 1997 through 2007.

Results

In tow-away longitudinal barrier crashes, airbag deployment rates were 70% for airbag-equipped vehicles. Compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available, seat belt restrained occupants with an airbag available had a dramatically decreased risk of receiving a serious (MAIS 3+) injury (odds-ratio (OR) = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.004-0.24). A similar decrease was observed among those restrained by seat belts, but without an airbag available (OR = 0.03; 95% CI: 0.001- 0.79). No significant differences in risk of serious injuries were observed between unbelted occupants with an airbag available compared with unbelted occupants without an airbag available (OR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.10-2.68).

Impact on Industry

This study refutes the perception in the roadside safety community that airbags rarely deploy in frontal barrier crashes, and suggests that current longitudinal barrier occupant risk criteria may over-estimate injury potential for restrained occupants involved in a longitudinal barrier crash.     

Child passenger fatality: Child restraint system usage and contributing factors among the youngest passengers from 2011 to 2015

Objective: Motor-vehicle crashes (MVC) remain a leading cause of preventable injury and death for children aged 0–3 in the United States. Despite advancement in legislation and public awareness there is continued evidence of inappropriate child restraint system (CRS) use among the youngest passengers. The current study focuses on appropriate CRS use from 2011 to 2015 using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for children aged 0–3. Methods: Child-, driver-, vehicle-, and trip-related characteristics were investigated within a sample of 648 children from 625 crashes over 5-years in which a child aged 0–3 was fatally injured while unrestrained or wearing an identified CRS type. Multivariable log-binomial regression was used to obtain relative risk. Results: Only 48% of the fatally injured children were appropriately restrained in a CRS. Premature transition to a booster seat and seat belt was evident. The largest proportion of rear-facing restraint use was reported in < 1 year olds (40%), with less reported in 1 (11%) and 2 year olds (2%) and no usage in 3 year olds. Younger children were more likely to be in an appropriate CRS, while Black children, driver not restrained in a lap-shoulder belt configuration, and riding in a pickup truck were less likely to be restrained appropriately. Conclusions: Evidence of inappropriate CRS use supports the use of more stringent legislation and parental interventions to communicate best practice recommendations and educate caregivers regarding appropriate child restraint methods. Practical applications: Public health campaigns focused on increasing appropriate restraint use in children are of great importance as optimally restrained children are less likely to sustain injuries, or require crash-related hospitalization compared to unrestrained children. Researchers and practitioners may find these surveillance findings essential when developing education and interventions targeting child–parent dyads at the greatest risk for a MVC-related fatality.     

Variability in vehicle and dummy responses in rear-end collisions

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify the occupant response variability due to differences in vehicle and seat design in low-speed rear-end collisions. METHODS: Occupant response variability was quantified using a BioRID dummy exposed to rear-end collisions in 20 different vehicles. Vehicles were rolled rearward into a rigid barrier at 8 km/h and the dynamic responses of the vehicle and dummy were measured with the head restraint adjusted to the up most position. In vehicles not damaged by this collision, additional tests were conducted with the head restraint down and at different impact speeds. RESULTS: Despite a coefficient of variation (COV) of less than 2% for the impact speed of the initial 8 km/h tests, the vehicle response parameters (speed change, acceleration, restitution, bumper force) had COVs of 7 to 23% and the dummy response parameters (head and T1 kinematics, neck loads, NIC, N(ij) and N(km)) had COVs of 14 to 52%. In five vehicles tested multiple times, a head restraint in the down position significantly increased the peak magnitude of many dummy kinematic and kinetic response parameters. Peak head kinematics and neck kinetics generally varied linearly with head restraint back set and height, although the neck reaction moment reversed and increased considerably if the dummy's head wrapped onto the top of the head restraint. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the proposition that the vehicle, seat, and head restraint are a safety system and that the design of vehicle bumpers and seats/head restraint should be considered together to maximize the potential reduction in whiplash injuries.     

Estimated Injury Risk for Specific Injuries and Body Regions in Frontal Motor Vehicle Crashes

Objective: Injury risk curves estimate motor vehicle crash (MVC) occupant injury risk from vehicle, crash, and/or occupant factors. Many vehicles are equipped with event data recorders (EDRs) that collect data including the crash speed and restraint status during a MVC. This study's goal was to use regulation-required data elements for EDRs to compute occupant injury risk for (1) specific injuries and (2) specific body regions in frontal MVCs from weighted NASS-CDS data.

Methods: Logistic regression analysis of NASS-CDS single-impact frontal MVCs involving front seat occupants with frontal airbag deployment was used to produce 23 risk curves for specific injuries and 17 risk curves for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ to 5+ body region injuries. Risk curves were produced for the following body regions: head and thorax (AIS 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+), face (AIS 2+), abdomen, spine, upper extremity, and lower extremity (AIS 2+, 3+). Injury risk with 95% confidence intervals was estimated for 15–105 km/h longitudinal delta-Vs and belt status was adjusted for as a covariate.

Results: Overall, belted occupants had lower estimated risks compared to unbelted occupants and the risk of injury increased as longitudinal delta-V increased. Belt status was a significant predictor for 13 specific injuries and all body region injuries with the exception of AIS 2+ and 3+ spine injuries. Specific injuries and body region injuries that occurred more frequently in NASS-CDS also tended to carry higher risks when evaluated at a 56 km/h longitudinal delta-V. In the belted population, injury risks that ranked in the top 33% included 4 upper extremity fractures (ulna, radius, clavicle, carpus/metacarpus), 2 lower extremity fractures (fibula, metatarsal/tarsal), and a knee sprain (2.4–4.6% risk). Unbelted injury risks ranked in the top 33% included 4 lower extremity fractures (femur, fibula, metatarsal/tarsal, patella), 2 head injuries with less than one hour or unspecified prior unconsciousness, and a lung contusion (4.6–9.9% risk). The 6 body region curves with the highest risks were for AIS 2+ lower extremity, upper extremity, thorax, and head injury and AIS 3+ lower extremity and thorax injury (15.9–43.8% risk).

Conclusions: These injury risk curves can be implemented into advanced automatic crash notification (AACN) algorithms that utilize vehicle EDR measurements to predict occupant injury immediately following a MVC. Through integration with AACN, these injury risk curves can provide emergency medical services (EMS) and other patient care providers with information on suspected occupant injuries to improve injury detection and patient triage.     

Development of a three-year-old child FE model

OBJECTIVE: Child crash dummies are conventionally used for safety performance evaluations of the child restraint system (CRS) in vehicle crash tests. To investigate injuries to various body regions of a child in detail, mathematical models are useful, and provide information that cannot be analyzed by crash dummies. Therefore, in the present research, a finite element (FE) model of a 3-year-old child has been developed by model-based scaling from the AM50 human FE model, THUMS (Total HUman body for Safety). METHODS: The dimensions of each body region were based on the anthropometry data of United States children, and material properties of child bone were estimated from data reported in the literature. Neck flexion, thorax impact responses, and torso flexion were validated against the response corridor of the 3-year-old Hybrid III dummy in calibration tests. A test of lap belt loading to the abdomen was also conducted. FE models of two different types of CRS, a 5-point harness and a tray shield CRS, were also made, and ECE R44 sled impact test simulations were conducted using the child FE model. RESULTS: The characteristics of the child FE model proved to be close to the Hybrid III and child volunteer corridor. In the ECE R44 sled test simulations using the child FE model, the head movement down and head rotation were large in the 5-point harness CRS, and chest deflection was large in the tray shield CRS. In both CRS types, the whole spine flexed in the child FE model. This behavior is different from that of the Hybrid III, where the thorax spine is stiff and only the cervical spine and lumbar spine flex. CONCLUSIONS: Although this child FE model has several limitations in areas such as the anatomical shapes and material properties of a child, this model can be a useful tool to examine the behavior of a child in impacts, which may be difficult to predict by using the Hybrid III dummy with its stiff thorax spine box.     

Implications of Functional Capacity Loss and Fatality for Vehicle Safety Prioritization

Objective: We investigate the use of the Functional Capacity Index (FCI) as a tool for establishing vehicle safety priorities by comparing the life year burden of injuries to the burden of fatality in frontal and side automotive crashes. We demonstrate FCI’s utility by investigating in detail the resulting disabling injuries and their life year costs.

Methods: We selected occupants in the 2000–2013 NASS-CDS database involved in frontal and side crashes, merged their injuries with FCI, and then used the merged data to estimate each occupant’s overall functional loss. Lifetime functional loss was assessed by combining this measure of impairment with the occupants’ expected future life spans, estimated from the Social Security Administration’s Actuarial Life Table.

Results: Frontal crashes produce a large number of disabling injuries, particularly to the lower extremities. In our population, these crashes are estimated to account for approximately 400,000 life years lost to disability in comparison with 500,000 life years lost to fatality. Victims of side crashes experienced a higher rate of fatality but a significantly lower rate of disabling injury (0.3 vs. 1.0%), resulting in approximately 370,000 life years lost to fatality versus 50,000 life years lost to disability.

Conclusions: The burden of disabling injuries to car crash survivors should be considered when setting vehicle safety design priorities. In frontal crashes this burden in life years is similar to the burden attributable to fatality.     

Differences in Long-term Medical Consequences Depending on Impact Direction Involving Passenger Cars

Objective: There is limited knowledge of the long-term medical consequences for occupants injured in car crashes in various impact directions. Thus, the objective was to evaluate whether injuries leading to permanent medical impairment differ depending on impact direction.

Methods: In total, 36,743 injured occupants in car crashes that occurred between 1995 and 2011 were included. All initial injuries (n = 61,440) were classified according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005. Injured car occupants were followed for at least 3 years to assess permanent medical impairment. The data were divided into different groups according to impact direction and levels of permanent impairment. The risk of permanent medical impairment was established for different body regions and injury severity levels, according to AIS.

Results: It was found that almost 12% of all car occupants sustained a permanent medical impairment. Given an injury, car occupants involved in rollover crashes had the highest overall risk to sustain a permanent medical impairment. Half of the head injuries leading to long-term consequences occurred in frontal impacts. Far-side occupants had almost the same risk as near-side occupants. Occupants who sustained a permanent medical impairment from cervical spine injuries had similar risk in all impact directions (13%) except from rollover (17%). However, these injuries occurred more often in rear crashes. Most of the injuries leading to long-term consequences were classified as minor injuries by AIS for all impact directions.

Conclusions: Studying crash data from a perspective of medical impairment is important to identify injuries that might not be prioritized only considering the AIS but might lead to lower quality of life for the occupant and also costs for society. These results can be used for road transport system strategies and for making priority decisions in vehicle design.     

Cervical and thoracic spine injury in pediatric motor vehicle crash passengers

Objective: Motor vehicle occupants aged 8 to 12 years are in transition, in terms of both restraint use (booster seat or vehicle belt) and anatomical development. Rear-seated occupants in this age group are more likely to be inappropriately restrained than other age groups, increasing their vulnerability to spinal injury. The skeletal anatomy of an 8- to 12-year-old child is also in developmental transition, resulting in spinal injury patterns that are unique to this age group. The objective of this study is to identify the upper spine injuries commonly experienced in the 8- to 12-year-old age group so that anthropomorphic test devices (ATDs) representing this size of occupant can be optimized to predict the risk of these injuries.

Methods: Motor vehicle crash cases from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) were analyzed to characterize the location and nature of cervical and thoracic spine injuries in 8- to 12-year-old crash occupants compared to younger (age 0–7) and older age groups (age 13–19, 20–39).

Results: Spinal injuries in this trauma center data set tended to occur at more inferior vertebral levels with older age, with patients in the 8- to 12-year-old group diagnosed with thoracic injury more frequently than cervical injury, in contrast to younger occupants, for whom the proportion of cases with cervical injury outnumbered the proportion of cases with thoracic injury. With the cervical spine, a higher proportion of 8- to 12-year-olds had upper spine injury than adults, but a substantially lower proportion of 8- to 12-year-olds had upper spine injury than younger children. In terms of injury type, the 8- to 12-year-old group’s injury patterns were more similar to those of teens and adults, with a higher relative proportion of fracture than younger children, who were particularly vulnerable to dislocation and soft tissue injuries. However, unlike for adults and teens, catastrophic atlanto-occipital dislocations were still more common than any other type of dislocation for 8- to 12-year-olds and vertebral body fractures were particularly frequent in this age group.

Conclusions: Spinal injury location in the cervical and thoracic spine moved downward with age in this trauma center data set. This shift in injury pattern supports the need for measurement of thoracic and lower cervical spine loading in ATDs representing the 8- to 12-year-old age group.