Assessing tether anchor labeling and usability in pickup trucks

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate vehicle factors associated with child restraint tether use and misuse in pickup trucks and evaluate 4 labeling interventions designed to educate consumers on proper tether use.

Methods: Volunteer testing was performed with 24 subjects and 4 different pickup trucks. Each subject performed 8 child restraint installations among the 4 pickups using 2 forward-facing restraints: a Britax Marathon G4.1 and an Evenflo Triumph. Vehicles were selected to represent 4 different implementations of tether anchors among pickups: plastic loop routers (Chevrolet Silverado), webbing routers (Ram), back wall anchors (Nissan Frontier), and webbing routers plus metal anchors (Toyota Tundra). Interventions included a diagram label, Quick Response (QR) Code linked to video instruction, coordinating text label, and contrasting text tag.

Results: Subjects used the child restraint tether in 93% of trials. However, tether use was completely correct in only 9% of trials. An installation was considered functional if the subject attached the tether to a tether anchor and had a tight installation (ignoring routing and head restraint position); 28% of subjects achieved a functional installation. The most common installation error was attaching the tether hook to the anchor/router directly behind the child restraint (near the top of the seatback) rather than placing the tether through the router and attaching it to the anchor in the adjacent seating position. The Nissan Frontier, with the anchor located on the back wall of the cab, had the highest rate of correct installations but also had the highest rate of attaching the tether to components other than the tether anchor (seat adjustor, child restraint storage hook, around head restraint). None of the labeling interventions had a significant effect on correct installation; not a single subject scanned the QR Code to access the video instruction. Subjects with the most successful installations spent extensive time reviewing the vehicle manuals.

Conclusion: Current implementations of tether anchors among pickup trucks are not intuitive for child restraint installations, and alternate designs should be explored. Several different labeling interventions were ineffective at achieving correct tether use in pickup trucks.     

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.     

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.