Objective: Since 2005, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Incorporated (NASCAR) drivers have been required to use a head and neck restraint system (HNR) that complies with SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) 38.1. The primary purpose of the HNR is to control and limit injurious neck loads and head kinematics during frontal and frontal oblique impacts. The SFI 38.1 performance specification was implemented to establish a uniform test procedure and minimum standard for the evaluation of HNRs using dynamic sled testing. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the repeatability of the current SFI 38.1 test setup and explore the effects of a polyester seat belt restraint system.
Method: Eight sled tests were conducted using the SFI 38.1 sled test protocol with additional test setup constraints. Four 0° frontal tests and 4 30° right frontal (RF) oblique tests were conducted. The first 3 tests of each principal direction of force (PDOF) used nylon SFI 16.1 seat belt restraint assemblies. The fourth test of each PDOF used polyester SFI 16.6 seat belt restraint assemblies. A secondary data set (Lab B Data) was also supplied by the HNR manufacturer for further comparisons. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 18571 objective comparison method was used to quantify the repeatability of the anthropomorphic test device (ATD) resultant head, chest, and pelvis acceleration and upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories across multiple tests.
Results: Two data sets generated using the SFI 38.1 test protocol exhibited large variations in mean ISO scores of ATD channels. The 8 tests conducted with additional setup constraints had significantly lower mean ISO score coefficients of variation (CVs). The Lab B tests conducted within the current specification but without the additional test setup constraints had larger mean ISO score standard deviation and CV for all comparisons. Specifically, tests with the additional setup constraints had average CVs of 3.3 and 2.9% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively. Lab B tests had average CVs of 22.9 and 24.5%, respectively. Polyester seat belt comparisons had CVs of 5.3 and 6.2% for the 0° and 30° RF orientations, respectively.
Conclusion: With the addition of common test setup constraints, which do not violate the specification, the SFI 38.1 test protocol produced a repeatable test process for determining performance capabilities of HNRs within a single sled lab. A limited study using polyester webbing seat belt assemblies versus the nylon material called for in SFI 38.1 indicates that the material likely has less effects on ATD upper neck axial force and flexion extension bending moment time histories than the test setup freedom currently available within the specification. The additional test setup constraints are discussed and were shown to improve ATD response repeatability for a given HNR. 相似文献
Objective: Traffic crashes have high mortality and morbidity for young children. Though many specialized child restraint systems improve injury outcomes, no large-scale studies have investigated the cross-chest clip's role during a crash, despite concerns in some jurisdictions about the potential for neck contact injuries from the clips. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cross-chest clip use and injury outcomes in children between 0 and 4 years of age.
Methods: Child passengers between 0 and 4 years of age were selected from the NASS-CDS data sets (2003–2014). Multiple regression analysis was used to model injury outcomes while controlling for age, crash severity, crash direction, and restraint type. The primary outcomes were overall Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) 2+ injury, and the presence of any neck injury.
Results: Across all children aged 0–4 years, correct chest clip use was associated with decreased Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ injury (odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21–0.91) and was not associated with neck injury. However, outcomes varied by age. In children <12 months old, chest clip use was associated with decreased AIS 2+ injury (OR = 0.09, 95% CI, 0.02–0.44). Neck injury (n = 7, all AIS 1) for this age group only occurred with correct cross-chest clip use. For 1- to 4-year-old children, cross-chest clip use had no association with AIS 2+ injury, and correct use significantly decreased the odds of neck injury (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27–0.87) compared to an incorrectly used or absent cross-chest clip. No serious injuries were directly caused by the chest clips.
Conclusions: Correct cross-chest clip use appeared to reduce injury in crashes, and there was no evidence of serious clip-induced injury in children in 5-point harness restraints. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
Objective: Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD), commonly denoted whiplash injury, is a worldwide problem. These injuries occur at relatively low changes of velocity (typically <25 km/h) in impacts from all directions. Rear impacts, however, are the most common in the injury statistics. Females have a 1.5–3 times higher risk of whiplash injury than males.?Improved seat design is the prevailing means of increasing the protection of whiplash injury for occupants in rear impacts. Since 1997, more advanced whiplash protection systems have been introduced on the market, the Saab Active Head Restraint (SAHR) being one of the most prominent. The SAHR—which is height adjustable—is mounted to a pressure plate in the seatback by means of a spring-resisted link mechanism.?Nevertheless, studies have shown that seats equipped with reactive head restraints (such as the SAHR) have a very high injury-reducing effect for males (～60–70%) but very low or no reduction effect for females. One influencing factor could be the position of the head restraint relative to the head, because a number of studies have reported that adjustable head restraints often are incorrectly positioned by drivers.?The aim was to investigate how female and male Saab drivers adjust the seat in the car they drive the most.Methods: The seated positions of drivers in stationary conditions have been investigated in a total of 76 volunteers (34 females, 42 males) who participated in the study. Inclusion criteria incorporated driving a Saab 9–3 on a regularly basis.Results: The majority of the volunteers (89%) adjusted the head restraint to any of the 3 uppermost positions and as many as 59% in the top position.?The average vertical distance between the top of the head and the top of the head restraint (offset) increase linearly with increasing statures, from an average of ?26 mm (head below the head restraint) for small females to an average of 82 mm (head above the head restraint) for large males. On average, the offset was 23 mm for females, which is within a satisfactory range and in accordance with recommendations; the corresponding value for males was 72 mm.?The backset tended to be shorter among female volunteers (on average 27 mm) compared to the male volunteers (on average 44 mm). Moreover, the backset tended to increase with increasing statures.Conclusions: Incorrect adjustment of the head restraint cannot explain the large differences found between the sexes in the effectiveness of the SAHR system. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
