• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Informe de Investigación SRI en Australia
 

Informe de Investigación SRI en Australia

on

  • 658 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
658
Views on SlideShare
658
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Informe de Investigación SRI en Australia Informe de Investigación SRI en Australia Document Transcript

    • Página 14.4 Informe de InvestigaciónInnovaciones para la seguridadNiño restricciones de Australia 2004 07 2004 Página 2 REPRODUCCIÓN DE ESTA PAGINA ESTA AUTORIZADO Real Automóvil Club de Victoria (RACV) Ltd RECUPERACIÓN DE LA INFORMACIÓN Informe N º Fecha ISBN Páginas PP 4.4 2004 06 2004 1 875963 41 3 42 Título Innovación de seguridad para sistemas de retención infantil en Australia Autores Michael Griffiths - Soluciones de seguridad vial Julie Brown - Soluciones para la Seguridad Vial Michael Paine - Diseño de Vehículos y de Investigación Realización de la Organización Departamento de Política Pública Real Automóvil Club de Victoria (RACV) Ltd 550 Princes Highway NobFle Parque Norte 3174 Resumen Australia ha estado a la vanguardia de la restricción de seguridad para niños, debido aldesarrollo de un sistema obligatorio Norma Australiana para los sistemas de retención infantil que es considerado un lídermundial en cuanto al nivel de la protección que proporcionan. Mientras que el estándar australiano de sistemas de retención infantil es muy estrictossigue habiendo margen para la mejora que incluye: inadecuada e incorrecta utilización de direccionamiento de sistemas de retencióninfantil Mejorar la protección contra impactos laterales La introducción de sistemas innovadores que ofrecen un mayor nivel de protecciónpara los niños mayores. Áreas de mejora potencial de retención de niños australianos se exponen y discuten enel informe, en particular en relación con el riesgo de una incorrecta instalación. Palabras clave retención de niños, cinturón de seguridad, niño, bebé, edad, uso de sistema deseguridad, instalación, diseño, lesiones, lesiones
    • la prevención, la cabeza, el cuello, el movimiento, la norma australiana, el diseño denormas de Australia, prueba de laboratorio, la cabeza en la colisión, colisión lateral, bolsa de aire, de anclaje, la innovación, laeducación, internacional comparación Descargo de responsabilidad La investigación presentada en este informe ha sido financiado por la RACV y se liberaen el interés público. Las opiniones expresadas y las recomendaciones son las de los autores y no reflejannecesariamente política RACV. Aunque el informe se cree que es correcta en el momento de la publicación, RACV, enla medida legal, excluye cualquier responsabilidad por pérdida (tanto si se producen bajo contrato,agravio, estatuto o de otra manera) que surjan de el contenido del informe o de su uso. Cuando esa responsabilidad no puede excluirse,se reduce a el alcance legal. La discreción y el juicio se debe aplicar cuando el uso o aplicación decualquiera de la información contenida en el Informe. i RACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.4 Página 3 INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA ii Tabla de contenidos Resumen Ejecutivo iv 1. Introducción 1 2. Antecedentes 2 2.1 El Estándar Australiano de retención para niños 2 2.2 Australia Sistema de anclaje actual 3 3. Ámbito de aplicación para la mejora 4 3.1 y Uso incorrecto inapropiado 4 3.2 Protección de impacto lateral 6 3.3 Los sistemas que ofrecen mayores niveles de protección para niños mayores 7 4. En el plano internacional 9 4.1 Sistemas de Anclaje Alternativa 9 4.1.1 Antecedentes
    • 94.1.2 Normas y Reglamentos104.1.3 Las pruebas de mejorar la protección114.1.4 Facilidad de uso y mal uso de sistemas de retención infantil124.1.5 Posibles ámbitos de preocupación con ISOFIX134.2 Búsquedas de Patentes144.3 Desarrollos Comerciales144.3.1 EE.UU. Modelos de sistemas de retención infantil144.3.2 Modelos europeos de sistemas de retención infantil164.3.3 Los modelos japoneses de sistemas de retención infantil164.3.4 CRS Interacción con bolsas de aire164.3.5 Las contramedidas de uso indebido174.4 Diseño de Vehículos de asiento174.5 Mejora de la protección de impacto lateral184.6 Mejora de la Protección de Niños Mayores195. Evolución de las normas de Australia215.1 Armonización de Normas Internacionales de retención infantil215.2 Ubicación de los anclajes Top Tether215.3 Retención Infantil de Australia Evaluación de Programas (CREP)226. Las innovaciones de seguridad potenciales para las restricciones de Australia246.1 Sistemas Indicador Visual246.2 Manual del usuario permanentemente conectado a CRS246.3 tensada, flexible sistema LATCH estilo Baja adjuntos24Baja estilo rígido ISOFIX adjuntos 6.4246.5 Efectos secundarios de Protección de Metodología246.6 Tensado del cinturón de seguridad para adultos
    • 26 Página 4iiiRACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.46.7 Ajuste fácil de la altura del hombro del arnés266.8 antideslizamiento y asiento de diseño266.9 clips en el pecho266.10Top Guías de anclaje267. Innovación de seguridad con mayor potencial para Australia288. Requisitos de Investigación29CRS 8.1 Diseño y problemas de uso298.2 Diseño Temas de vehículos298.3 Programas del Consumidor308.4 Normas y Reglamentos308.5 Cuestiones Internacionales308.6 Supervisión continua309. Estrategias de implementación3110. Observaciones finales3211. Referencias33Apéndice A: resultados de la búsqueda de patentes35 Página 5 RESUMEN EJECUTIVO niño restricciones de Australia son considerados como un líder mundial en términos delnivel de protección que proporcionar. El objetivo de esta investigación fue investigar las oportunidades denuevas mejoras en la nivel de protección, tanto a través de desarrollos innovadores en el diseño de sistemasde retención infantil y las deficiencias en el actual estándar de Australia. Niño restricciones de Australia Australia ha estado a la vanguardia de la restricción de seguridad para niños, debido aldesarrollo de un sistema obligatorio Norma Australiana para los sistemas de retención infantil. Esta norma ha sido eficaz,ya que ha requerido un
    • seguridad del sistema, incluyendo las correas de sujeción superior, un ajuste de un solopunto de los arneses, la entrepierna doble correas de retención para niños orientados hacia adelante y extensa las pruebas dechoque de laboratorio de impacto frontal, lateral, invertida simula el impacto y la parte trasera. Mientras que el estándar australiano de sistemas de retención infantil es muy estrictossigue habiendo margen para la mejora que incluye: inadecuada e incorrecta utilización de direccionamiento de sistemas de retencióninfantil Mejorar la protección contra impactos laterales La introducción de sistemas innovadores que ofrecen un mayor nivel de protecciónpara los niños mayores. Abordar e incorrecta uso inadecuado Mientras el niño restricciones australianas han altas tasas de uso, uso incorrecto reducela eficacia de la sistema de retención. Los estudios han encontrado que alguna forma de abuso escomún que tienen lugar cuando los niños son heridos restringida. Las evaluaciones muestran que hasta el 70% de lasrestricciones se utiliza en Australia puede ser instalado de forma incorrecta. Para tratar de superar algunos de los problemas de instalación, la comunidadinternacional de seguridad para niños unido sus fuerzas para desarrollar un nuevo sistema de anclaje de sistemas de retencióninfantil en vehículos. Este concepto, originalmente conocido como ISOFIX, fue propuesto por primera vez en1991. Los objetivos principales de esta sistema se para reducir la incidencia del mal uso, y mejorar el nivel general deprotección proporcionada por los sistemas de retención infantil en los accidentes. Después de una considerable investigación y el desarrollo de un sistema de fijaciónrígida se propuso que hizo uso de dos bajos accesorios rígidos. Si bien esto es aceptable para algunos,muchos expertos, sugirió que una sujeción superior se requiere. Los EE.UU. y Canadá han establecidoun nuevo estándar la incorporación de este sistema rígido, conocido como el sistema LATCH, con laexigencia de un anclaje superior. Una cantidad limitada de pruebas de laboratorio de prototipos rígido semi-rígidos) y lossistemas de anclaje (ha llevado a cabo. En el impacto frontal accidentes tales sistemas no parecen ofrecerimportantes protección adicional a la ya aportada por el niño mejor y las restricciones de Australia anclaje de los sistemas actuales. Sin embargo, el principal beneficio de rígidos anclajesinferiores en los actuales método australiano de anclaje, en términos de protección contra choques, es sucapacidad para reducir los lados desplazamiento lateral y rotación de retención de niños en accidentes de impactolateral. Además, en el sistema de retención infantil
    • sistemas en los que hay un difícil encaje con el asiento del vehículo (a menudo debido alos contornos del asiento para adaptarse a dos adultos ocupantes traseros), el rígido sistema tiene el potencial para mejorar elrendimiento al proporcionar una más rígido en forma. Mientras que los anclajes inferiores ISOFIX debería ayudar a eliminar algunas formasde abuso en Australia, no la posibilidad de nuevas formas de mal uso, incluyendo: INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA iv Página 6 Sueltas inferiores adjuntos (si los archivos adjuntos de tensión no se incluyen) Dificultad para contratar y desunir los accesorios más bajo podría reducir su consumo Un requisito para la educación de la comunidad en el uso del nuevo sistema. En la actualidad hay un pequeño número de vehículos importados en el mercadoaustraliano que han de vehículos adjuntos en que cumplan los requisitos de la Norma InternacionalISOFIX. Sin embargo, no hay sistemas de retención infantil disponibles en Australia para su usocon estos sistemas. Además, la falta de un australiano Regla de diseño para sistemas de anclaje rígida significa queno están regulados por la fuerza o de posición. Los primeros indicadores de campo sugieren que los anclajesISOFIX no puede ser fuerte suficiente, lo que sugiere que es prudente esperar para Australia y fomentar lainvestigación y desarrollo en vez de poner en práctica este sistema inmediatamente. Mejorar la protección contra impactos laterales en las restricciones protección contra impactos laterales es un área donde la mejora se podría hacer. Laprotección de una restringida de la cabeza del niño se ha mostrado como mínimo en los resultados de ambos mundoreal y estudios de laboratorio. Los estudios de los accidentes de impacto lateral muestra la cabeza del niño como lamás frecuente y grave zona lesionada del cuerpo independientemente del tipo de impacto. protección contraimpactos laterales se puede mejorar si: el sistema de retención infantil ha alas laterales "que mantienen la cabeza una vez que la cabeza se mantiene, proporcionar algún tipo de absorción de energía en"el lado de las alas rotación del sistema de retención infantil a su vez el objeto y la cara de entrada esprevenir. El alto nivel de protección delantera dispuesto por la norma australiana se ha traducidoen reconocimiento internacional como posiblemente más duro del mundo de la Norma.También fue la primera norma de incluir una prueba de impacto lateral. Sin embargo, se trataba de una prueba sencilla, yde protección delantera es tan eficaz que la protección de impacto lateral mejor se ha convertido en el próximo "frontera"para conquistar.
    • Una nueva prueba de impacto lateral adicional se ha especificado en la actual revisiónde la australiana Norma. La nueva prueba evalúa las posibles lesiones de cabeza en impactos laterales. campo Muchos estudios han señalado que, si bien cinturones de seguridad para adultosproporcionar una protección adecuada para los niños de 4 - 10 años, el nivel de protección que ofrecen a estos niños no es tan alta que laprevista dedicado por sistemas de retención infantil para los más pequeños. Los asientoselevados son teóricamente "niño dedicado sistemas de retención "para los niños en este rango de edad. Sin embargo, los estudiossugieren que: - las tasas de uso de asientos elevados por los niños en este rango de edad es muy baja La mayoría de los niños involucrados en accidentes con víctimas fueron adultossistemas de cinturón de seguridad El nivel de protección previsto por las actuales plazas de refuerzo de Australia esmenor que el previsto por dedicada sistemas de retención infantil para los más pequeños asiento de diseño de refuerzo en Australia es una zona de notable en el que aparece a lazaga de la práctica EE.UU.. Las innovaciones de seguridad potencial de retención de niños de Australia En cuanto a los niveles relativos de la protección ofrecida a los ocupantes del vehículo,los niños están bien atendidos en el Australia. Sin embargo, hay margen para el desarrollo de los sistemas de retencióninfantil que ofrecen incluso mayores niveles de protección de los ocupantes y, sobre todo en el corto plazo, elámbito para desarrollar innovación en los sistemas de retención infantil que reduce en gran medida laprobabilidad de que una instalación incorrecta. Áreas de innovación y mejora de los sistemas de retención de niños identificadosincluyen: La introducción de sistemas de indicadores visuales para reducir el mal uso. Unsistema de indicadores visuales pueden se integrará en el sistema de retención infantil que se indica al consumidor si el niño v RACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.4 Página 7 sistema de seguridad se ha instalado correctamente en el vehículo, y si el niño eraaprovechado correctamente en el sistema de retención infantil. Mejor diseño de refuerzo de seguridad para un rango de edad de los niños, laincorporación de impacto lateral protección y antideslizamiento características. Mejor baja la fijación del sistema de retención infantil a través de la adopción de unavariante de la ISOFIX / sistema LATCH. Este sería usar dos correas de anclaje inferiores flexibles,uno para cada parte inferior trasera esquina de la retención de niños, que se tensan después de la instalación a fin deproporcionar un casi rígida la instalación.
    • Introducción de una exigente prueba de impacto lateral más para sistemas de retencióninfantil. Para pasar esta prueba, es prevé que un sistema de retención infantil que requieren energía acolchada que absorbealas laterales, y el la cabeza del niño sea contenida por la disposición del arnés dentro de estas alas. la altura del hombro variable de ajuste del arnés que se logra a través de una variablecontinua sistema en lugar de la necesidad de rethreading las correas del arnés por las ranuras adiferentes alturas. Permanente adjunto de manuales de usuario para el sistema de retención infantil. INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA vi Página 8 1 RACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.4 Australia tiene 30 años de experiencia en el desarrollo de los sistemas de retencióninfantil (SRI). Durante esta vez los requisitos para sistemas de retención infantil, según lo establecido en lanorma australiana 1754, han evolucionado de manera significativa. Esta experiencia ha permitido a Australia para incorporar lasmejores características identificadas por investigación de seguridad vial y eliminar las características indeseables, tales comoexcursiones cabeza excesiva, resbale, dificultades en el uso correcto de los sistemas de retención, etc Sin embargo, apesar de la excelente el rendimiento de sistemas de retención infantil australiana, sobre todo en comparacióncon otros países, sigue habiendo margen de mejora. El propósito de este informe es examinar las oportunidades de mejora en el nivel de protección brindada a los niños que viajan en vehículos, en primer lugar a través deinnovaciones en los niños diseño de sistemas de retención y en segundo lugar para hacer frente a las deficienciasen las normas vigentes o en proyecto. El estándar australiano ha evolucionado tanto como resultado de la identificación decaracterísticas indeseables en tiempo real accidentes y de las basadas en la investigación de laboratorio que se encuentran margenpara seguir mejorando en el niño sistemas de protección de los ocupantes. El resultado de esta revisión ha sido la identificación de un número de diseño desistemas de retención infantil características que son susceptibles de soluciones innovadoras. Posibles soluciones innovadoras se incluye el desarrollo de las recientes normasinternacionales en modalidades de colocación de CRS a los vehículos y otras ideas no se abordanactualmente que garantiza una mayor investigación. Los posibles soluciones con la mayor probabilidad de éxito, así como estrategias parasu aplicación, se presentan en este informe.
    • 1. Introducción Página 9 INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA 2 2.1 El Estándar Australiano de retención para niños El primer australiano de sujeción para niños estándar se publicó en 1970, como E-46.Esto fue que posteriormente fue sustituido en 1975 por AS 1754. Los cambios en AS 1754 ysus ediciones posteriores han sido el resultado de una larga historia de investigación de seguridad vial (incluyendo laprofundidad en los estudios de accidentes, de laboratorio pruebas de trineo y las pruebas de colisión de vehículos) y una relación de trabajo únicaentre los investigadores y el SRC fabricantes. El resultado es una norma, considerada por muchos como el mejor delmundo que contiene una serie de requisitos de diseño único en comparación con las normas internacionales. Posiblemente el más importante de estas características ha sido la única de larga dataobligatoria requisito para las correas de sujeción superior como parte del vehículo / interfaz desistema de retención infantil. La imperiosa beneficio de una sujeción superior es su influencia en la reducción de los ocupantes delniño excursión cabeza. mundo de los estudios Real han demostrado consistentemente y de manera concluyente que la cabeza es la regiónmás vulnerable del cuerpo de un hijo de los ocupantes. La protección de la cabeza del contacto con el interior delvehículo es la más alta prioridad de cualquier ocupante del sistema de protección de menores. Sin embargo, un beneficiosecundario de los requisitos obligatorios ha sido la necesidad de utilizar un anclaje superior que ha mantenido con eficaciasistemas de retención infantil en el asiento trasero. Otros requisitos importantes que históricamente han establecido niño protección de losocupantes de Australia además de la experiencia de otros países (como los de América del Norte y Europa),incluyen: especificación cuidadosa de la longitud de la correa superior cuando se ajusta a sulongitud más corta; especificación cuidadosa de la ubicación de los puntos de montaje de correas desujeción superior en los coches (para ayudar a mayor accesibilidad). Las dificultades con la accesibilidad y el mantenimiento correctotensado adjunto han dado lugar a la norma de diseño de Australia permitiendo sólo un árealimitada para la tapa anclajes de sujeción que es considerablemente más restrictiva que la permitida en elsistema LATCH EE.UU. FMVSS 225 regulación; Ajuste de punto único para el arnés; correas de entrepierna doble hacia adelante frente a las restricciones (es decir, un arnésde seis puntos obligatorios);
    • Un bebé desarrollado especialmente ficticio, mucho más flexible que maniquíesinfantiles en el extranjero (de ahí más propensos a la expulsión) para pruebas de choque del trineo; Una prueba para la facilidad de ajuste del arnés; El requisito de que cualquier tapa de un asiento de seguridad debe ser extraíble o sintener que quitar el arnés o por tener un acuerdo que permite aprovechar la correa de hombro para retirarse de hardware ubicado en una de dos posiciones en la parte trasera del ocupante,y Un método de prueba dinámica integral que incluye frontales, laterales, traseras, y dearriba abajo simulada impactos. El niño australiano de retención estándar ha sido recientemente objeto de examen y unanueva versión modificada de la Norma está destinado a la liberación algún momento de 2004. Las cuestionesrelacionadas con la nueva modificar la norma australiana se discuten en la Sección 5. 2. Antecedentes Página 10 2.2 Australia Sistema de anclaje actual El método actual de fijación de CRS en Australia implica el uso de un cinturón deseguridad para adultos y una tapa correa de sujeción. El cinturón de adulto se utiliza como medio de asegurar la parteinferior de la CRS a la vehículo. En la década de 1970, antes de que el uso del sistema de cinturón de adultose convirtió en obligatoria, el australiano Estándar permitida la parte inferior de un asiento de seguridad que se ancla al vehículopor un asiento cinturón o tirantes dedicado. El uso de correas dedicada resultaron ser un problema deretención de niños encuestas montaje llevado a cabo en el centro de los aparcamientos de compras por elex NSW de Investigación de Accidentes de Tránsito Unidad (TARU), aproximadamente entre 1980 y 1985, donde se reveló que suficiente se estaba prestando atención a garantizar que estas bandas dedicadas se ajustaron bien.Este observación dio lugar a la norma se modifique el mandato de la utilización de uncinturón de seguridad para adultos como la anclaje inferior de fijación. La experiencia de Australia, por lo tanto, con la parteinferior trasera independiente correas de anclaje para sistemas de retención infantil, en la década de 1970, identificóel problema que tiene que haber una método fácil de usar y fiable para garantizar que no hay holgura en estos inferiortrasera flexible correas. Alta retención del sistema de retención infantil se logra mediante el uso de la correa desujeción superior. Comienzo de la página correas proporcionan un mayor apego seguro la mayor parte de sistemas de retencióninfantil en comparación con los que se concede el cinturón de seguridad solamente. En particular, proporcionan más fijación rígida enla parte superior del niño
    • sistema de seguridad, para que pueda "rebote" del accidente, mientras que el vehículoes la trituración, que reduce considerablemente la excursión de la cabeza del niño en relación con el interior del vehículo, tanto enimpactos frontales y laterales. Este significa que la cabeza es mucho menos susceptible de chocar con otras partes delinterior del vehículo que es el más probable causa de lesiones graves a un niño restringido adecuadamente. Otra ventaja de losamarres principales es que proporcionar apego seguro más de un SIR disponibles cuando el cinturón de adultosólo es de sólo un cinturón de regazo. Por lo tanto la posición del asiento trasero central, que hasta hace poco tenían a menudoun cinturón de regazo solamente, puede ofrecer un mayor nivel de protección de tomar ventaja de la distancia de la puerta. Aunque hay especulaciones y desinformación en curso en Europa con respecto a laposibilidad de que el uso de ataduras superior puede contribuir a la lesión grave del cuello en los niñospequeños contenida en adelante las restricciones que enfrentan, sus preocupaciones parecen ser infundados. Estacuestión fue tratada en un número de informes con un informe de la Asociación Australiana de Automóviles (Brown,Griffiths y Paine, 2002). Al igual que otras características del diseño, parece que hay alguna diferencia en lobien que los límites de sujeción superior Excursión de la cabeza en función de las características del diseño del sistema deretención infantil en sí. La ubicación de la punto de anclaje en el vehículo también puede influir en el rendimiento. En, losproblemas particulares con la punto de anclaje que se encuentra demasiado cerca del asiento de atrás se hanobservado en Australia en el pasado. De campo y estudios de laboratorio han demostrado que la forma actual de fijaciónempleado en Australia es extremadamente eficaz en impactos frontales. Sin embargo, existe margenpara mejorar el control de desplazamiento lateral en impactos laterales. Un nuevo concepto de anclaje se ha desarrollado y está empezando a introducirse enotros los países. Este sistema hace uso de rígido o semi rígido anclajes inferiores como unmedio para limitar el avance rotación del sistema de retención infantil. En América del Norte y las autoridades deCanadá han adoptado una flexible o rígido anclaje inferior concepto en relación con una sujeción superior. Esteconcepto tiene la potencial de reducir significativamente el uso indebido y retención / problemas deincompatibilidad vehículo. La mayoría de importante es que también tiene el potencial de mejorar significativamente elrendimiento de los sistemas de retención infantil en impactos laterales. Cuestiones actuales sobre la adopción de un sistema de anclaje inferior nuevo enAustralia se discuten
    • en la Sección 4.1.3RACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.4 Página 11 INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA 4 Australia sistemas de retención infantil proporcionan muy buena protección para losocupantes del niño, en particular en el impacto frontal. Las investigaciones de la eficacia del mundo realhan demostrado que los niños sistemas de retención para proporcionar una mejor protección para los niños que loscinturones de adultos ofrecen a los adultos. Sin embargo, y en el mundo real de los estudios de laboratorio han demostrado también que haymargen para mejorar el nivel de protección. El mayor margen para lograr mejoras en: Reducir el uso indebido y / o uso inadecuado de los sistemas de retención, Mejorar la protección contra impactos laterales, y El suministro de sistemas que ofrecen un mayor nivel de protección de los niños en los4 -10 años de edad área de distribución. 3.1 y Uso incorrecto inapropiado Para ser lo más eficaz posible un sistema de retención infantil debe ser utilizadocorrectamente. El uso correcto requiere que un sistema de retención debe ser utilizado por un niño de tamaño apropiado, el niñodebe estar bien colocado en el sistema de seguridad, y el sistema de seguridad debe estar correctamente ancladaal vehículo. los niños australianos son conocidos por tener altos índices de uso de sistema deseguridad (más del 95%) (Henderson, 1994). Sin embargo, el uso incorrecto reduce la eficacia del sistema de retención. Mientrasretención incorrecta uso a menudo se informa de un problema común, los diferentes tipos de abuso tienenefectos diferentes en el rendimiento de retención infantil. En América del Norte, los últimos estudiosobservacionales han demostrado que alrededor del 80% de los bebés no estaban siendo utilizados como estaba previsto, el modo de usoindebido era sobre todo del tipo menor (Weber, 2000). las tasas de uso indebido son más bajos en Australia.Un reciente 1997 observacional y entrevista de las instalaciones de retención de niños llevado a cabo en NSW encontróque el 29% de instalaciones relacionadas con la seguridad había problemas significativos. Incluso losíndices más bajos de uso indebido de NSW se encontró que en su mayoría de carácter menor, principalmente relacionados con latensión de ambas formas de anclaje (Es decir, los cinturones de sujeción superior y de adultos) y la sujeción del arnés delniño. La falta de un anclaje superior era un
    • problema en el 5% de las instalaciones encuestadas (Paine, 1998). En lo que respecta ala utilización efectiva de las restricciones (Es decir, la colocación del niño en el CRS), los estudios en Australia han demostradoque sólo un 5% de sistemas de retención infantil y el 8% de los asientos para niños se usanincorrectamente (Griffiths, Brown, Kelly, 1994). Sin embargo, el mal uso sigue siendo un problema significativo, ya que la mayoría delos estudios de campo en la investigación de lesiones los niños han encontrado que el contenido de algún tipo de mal uso es frecuentementeimplicados en los casos en los niños son heridos restringida (Gotschall, mejor, Bulas, Eichelberger, 1998,Henderson, 1994; Rattenbury y Gloyns, 1993; Weinstein, Sweeney, Garber, Eastwood, Osterman,Roberts, 1997). Posiblemente el estudio más completo hasta la fecha de la utilización indebidaretención papel que juega en lesiones a los niños restringida fue presentado por Gotschall et al (1998). Estos autoresestudiaron la circunstancias que rodean a una lesión a todos los niños de 0 -12 años ingresados enuna de las principales de América del Norte centro de trauma tras un accidente automovilístico. Encontraron que el 36% de losniños ingresados en el centro había sido restringida incorrectamente. Este uso incorrecto se asoció con unamayor gravedad de la lesión. De particular interés fue la observación de que todos los casos mortales en su estudioparticiparon un uso incorrecto. Del mismo modo, Weinstein et al (1997) encontraron 9 de cada 10 niños fatalmenteherido en su muestra de 207 niños, en los sistemas de restricciones que fueron mal instalados o inadecuado para sutamaño y de peso. Sin embargo, se trataba de un estudio realizado en EE.UU., donde los amarresde arriba no eran comunes en 1997, y por lo tanto pone de relieve los posibles niveles de uso indebido, sin sistemas de sujeción superior. 3. Ámbito de aplicación para la mejora Página 12 Henderson (1994) destacó el papel del uso indebido de implicados en accidentes deaccidentes incluidos en su muestra de niños mirando hacia el frente utilizando sistemas de retención infantil enAustralia. Henderson (1994) reportaron que de los 38 niños que utilizan sistemas de retención orientado hacia adelante, cincofueron con sus restricciones en forma incorrecta el momento del accidente. Cuatro de los cinco se asociaron con lesiones o la muerte.Aún más importante es la observación de los niños colocados en orientados hacia atrás y hacia adelanterestricciones, sólo cinco recibieron heridas con un MAIS superior a 2 (es decir, mayor que las lesionesleves / moderados niveles superficiales). Casi todos los heridos graves se asocian con algún tipo de maluso.
    • En general Henderson (1994) reportaron que el uso indebido del sistema de retencióninfantil estuvo presente en el 10% de los niños en los sistemas de retención infantil dedicada. Recientemente, Lalande, Legault y Pedder (2003) reportaron una serie de 44 impactosfrontales simulado utilizando tres tipos diferentes de sistemas de retención infantil orientado hacia delante de Canadácon diferentes modos de uso indebido. La objetivo de este trabajo fue identificar la degradación relativa de la seguridad comoresultado de diferentes, pero las formas más comunes del mal uso, en comparación con el nivel de protecciónprevisto en un sistema de retención infantil cuando no está mal. Los autores concluyeron que algunas formas de mal uso dedegradar la seguridad mucho más que otras formas de mal uso. Lalande et al (2003) el trabajo es útil, ya quese llevó a cabo en un establecimiento de normas y perfectamente cuantificados, que los casos de mala fuemás grave. El uso inadecuado es una forma sutil pero generalizada de mal uso. Se trata de lautilización de un sistema de retención por los niños fuera de la edad (o la altura y peso) clase para la que la restricción estádiseñado ese tipo. Gotschall et al (1998) encontraron que más del 76% de su muestra estaban restringidosinapropiada. Sin embargo el uso inadecuado también se incluyen los niños que utilizan loscinturones de adultos, cuando aún estaban en el altura / rango de peso de los asientos elevados. El efecto de esta forma de uso indebidode gravedad de la lesión fue estudiado en detalle por Weinstein et al (1997). Encontraron un gran número de niñostienden a moverse en la siguiente fase de contención antes de que se había alcanzado el tamaño adecuadopara que el sistema de sujeción. Una tendencia similar fue observada por Isaksson-Hellman, Jakobsson, Gustafsson yNorin (1997) en un estudio sueco. Los autores observaron que la muestra incluyó un númerosignificativo de niños que no habría sufrido lesiones si el sistema de seguridad óptimo del sistema niño más sehabían utilizado. De interés es que su hallazgo de que los niños relacionados restringida eran más propensosa sufrir lesiones cuando se encontraban en el pequeño final de la gama del tamaño recomendado para el sistemaque estaba utilizando. Estudios de campo, como el realizado en NSW en 1993 y comunicadas por Henderson,Brown y el dolor (1994) y Henderson, Brown y Griffiths (1997) y el estudio actual de 2 a 8 años losniños de edad llevando a cabo por el Príncipe de Gales Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas sugierenque, si bien la mayoría de niños están sujetos, la mayoría de los niños involucrados en accidentes contenida estáutilizando el cinturón de seguridad para adultos
    • sistemas. Es decir, los niños se gradúan demasiado pronto en los cinturones deseguridad para adultos cuando se más seguro hacia el frente en los sistemas de retención infantil. A principios de graduación de preescolar de entre los niños de sistemas de retencióninfantil dedicado y en adultos del asiento sistemas de cinturón también ha sido reportada en América del Norte (Winston 2000),así como el uso de seguridad para adultos cinturones de los niños en el rango de edad de 3 a 8 años para los que los asientoselevados están diseñados (Durbin, Kallan & Winston, 2003). Si bien los resultados de estudios de campo en Australiasugieren las prácticas análogas ocurrir aquí (Henderson et al, 1994, 1997, Brown & Bilston 2002, 2003), hasta la fechano cuantificaciones de esas prácticas han llevado a cabo en Australia. Un reciente estudio norteamericano por Winston et al (2000) específicamentedestinados a determinar el riesgo de lesiones significativas asociadas con la graduación prematura de los niños pequeños alos cinturones de seguridad. Esto fue logra a través de comparar el resultado de las lesiones de los niños que utilizan sistemasde retención adecuados con la de los niños que utilizan sistemas inadecuados. La muestra estuvo constituidapor 2.077 niños. De acuerdo a los estudios australianos (Henderson, 1994, 1997, Brown & Bilston2002), Winston et al. reportó 40% de todos los niños de edad restringida 2-5 años para utilizar cinturones deseguridad para adultos. Winston et al. (2000) también informó que en comparación con los niños en los sistemas de retencióninfantil dedicados, los niños en cinturones de seguridad de adultos fueron 3,5 veces más probabilidades de sufrir unperjuicio grave, especialmente en la cabeza región. 5 RACV INFORME DE INVESTIGACIÓN NO 4.4 Página 13 INNOVACIONES DE SEGURIDAD PARA SISTEMAS DE RETENCIÓNINFANTIL DE AUSTRALIA 6 Un estudio realizado por Morris, Arbogast, Durbin y Winston (2000) también haninformado mal uso de los propulsores. Ellos encontraron que la forma predominante de uso inapropiado de este tipo deretención infantil fue inadecuado uso. Eso es este sistema de seguridad fue utilizado por los niños en un / intervalo detamaño de edad fuera del rango de tamaño de diseño. En particular, señaló que la mayoría de los niños en su muestra (n = 227) eran"demasiado" pequeño para este tipo de restricción. Es decir, que aún debe ser mediante un sistema de seguridadorientado hacia adelante. Existe el potencial para reducir el riesgo de mal uso o uso incorrecto participación demontaje pobres de la
    • de retención en el vehículo y / o el niño al sistema de retención a través de solucionesde ingeniería. Mundial y las innovaciones locales en este ámbito se discuten en la sección 6. La lucha contrael uso inadecuado o específicamente la graduación prematura en los cinturones de seguridad para adultosprobablemente requiere un cambio de comportamiento estrategia, así como el diseño innovador de mejor booster para niños mayores. Másriguroso de impacto lateral requisitos de protección en última instancia, puede conducir esto. 3.2 Protección de impacto lateral La necesidad de protección contra impactos laterales mejorado ha sido reportado por unnúmero de investigadores en Australia y el extranjero sobre la base de pruebas de campo y el laboratorio (Arbona yMoll 2001; Brown, Kelly y Griffiths, 1997; Brown, et al 2002 (a), Henderson, 1994; Kelly yGriffiths, 1996; Weber, 2000). Protección de contenido de la cabeza de un niño en impactos laterales se ha mostradocomo mínimo en los resultados de tanto en el mundo real y estudios de laboratorio. Casi todos los estudios de las lesionesrecibidas por los niños que participan en impactos laterales informe de la cabeza como la más frecuente y gravemente heridosregión del cuerpo independientemente del tipo de impacto. Agran y Winn (1988) reportaron más graveque la cabeza y lesiones en la cara ocurren a los niños sentados en el lado de colisión en los accidentes de impacto lateral,en comparación con los niños en otros posiciones y otros tipos de impacto. Esto no es sorprendente ya que la investigación hademostrado que la mayoría de los graves lesiones en la cabeza en los niños ocurren cuando hay una huelga de cabeza conuna superficie interior(Khaewong, Nguyen, Bents, Eichelberger, Gotschall and Morissey, 1995). Such headstrikes arecommonly observed during laboratory crash sled tests. In side impacts in the real world,these headstrikes are complicated by the hard car door surface often intruding at a significantvelocity towardsthe child, while the childs head moves towards the car door. Most recently, Arbogast etal (2001)note that in their database of real world crashes, severe head injuries are the mostcommon seriousinjury sustained by children in side impacts (40% of serious injuries), even at minorcrash severities.They attribute this to contact with the side structures of the vehicle.Brown et al (1997) reported that the three main goals of a child restraint system in sideimpact debe ser:Ensuring that the child restraint has side wings that retain the headOnce the head is retained, providing some form of energy absorption in the side wings,and
    • Preventing rotation of the child restraint to turn and face the incoming object, andpreventingsideways movement towards the door.Some, but not all, Australian restraints currently provide relatively effective sidestructures (or sidewings) that work to retain a childs head in side impact. Despite this inadequacy, onlyrelativelyminor design changes are required to offer improved side impact protection in manyAustralianrestraint systems. Similarly the provision of energy absorption in side structures isuncommon, eventhough technology exists allowing this to be implemented in a cost efficient way.Finally, improved(separate, twin) lower anchorage systems have been shown to reduce sidewaysmovement androtation of child restraint systems (Brown et al, 1997).All of the above can be achieved with existing technologies and will be discussed inmore detail inSection 4. Página 14Proposed amendments to the Australian Standard are likely to affect the side impactperformanceof Australian child restraints. Current side impact performance assessment involves asimulated sideimpact at approximately 32km/hr on a standardardised car seat with no other vehicleinterior.Pass/fail criteria is based on a restraint systems ability to retain a child crash test dummywithoutany component failure. As at December 2003, the proposed amended version of theStandardincludes a revised, more stringent side impact assessment based on the Australian ChildRestraintEvaluation Program (CREP). This will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.3 Systems that Offer Increased Levels of Protection for Older ChildrenMany field studies have noted that while adult seat belts provide adequate protection forchildrenaged 4 – 10 years, the level of protection provided to these children is not as high as thatprovidedby dedicated child restraints for younger children. Booster seats are theoreticallydedicated childrestraint systems for children in this age range. However, studies suggest that:-Usage rates of booster seats by children in this age range is very lowThe level of protection provided by current Australian booster seats is less than thatprovided bydedicated child restraint systems for younger children (booster seat design in Australiais onenotable area where we appear to lag behind US practice).A recent study by Ebel, Koepsell, Bennet and Rivara (2003) who investigated boosterseat usage by
    • North American children found that 83.5% of their sample of children who could havebeen usinga booster seat were using adult belts alone. A lack of ongoing objective surveys hasresulted in suchstatistics not being available in Australia, but the high number of children in the boosterappropriateage range reported to be wearing adult belts in crashes suggests a similar phenomena inAustralia(Henderson, 1994, Henderson et al 1997, Brown & Bilston 2002, 2003).The primary purpose of a booster seat used to be to provide a transition betweendedicated childrestraint systems and adult seat belts by boosting(lifting) the seated height of the childoccupant togive better seat belt geometry.There are two different classes of boosters currently available in Australia, boostercushions and asientos elevados. The main difference between the two is that the cushion iscomprised of a seating areaonly while the seat incorporates a seat back.There are a number of booster design features that can influence the level of protectionprovided tochildren in a crash. The first is directly related to how well the booster achieves betterseat belt fit.Most, if not all modern booster designs incorporate some positive means of ensuringgoodplacement of the shoulder and lap portions of an adult belt. However there are somemodels thathold the adult belt system away from the childs body. When a significant gap existsbetween thechild seated in the booster and the webbing, the child tends to be thrown forwardunrestrained untilthey collide with the seat belt, with greater risk of injury than a seat belt positionedfirmly againsttheir body.Backless boosters or booster cushions do not provide any lateral support for a sleepingchild. Lapoint of improving seat belt fit is lost if a sleeping child falls sideways and the uppertorso comesout of the belt. For this reason, and also because there is absolutely no means forretaining the child’shead in side impact, these types of booster are not favoured. Some booster seats withbacks providesome form of lateral support, however none appear to provide adequate containment ofthe head inside impacts.Another possible disadvantage of booster seats noted by Weber (2000) is that the highback of thebooster seat “positions the child several inches closer to other parts of the car interior”.Este 7
    • RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 15SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 8becomes a safety issue with some booster seats because they are generally not restrainedby ananchorage attachment with any anchorage system to the vehicle as only a limitednumber have toptethers.The consequence of deficiencies in the current design of booster seats can be seen inresults fromfield studies. Field studies generally show that while booster seats appear to reduce thelikelihoodof injury compared to an adult belt system, they provide a lower level of protection thanother formsof dedicated child restraint (Carlsson, Norin & Ysander, 1991; Isaksson-Hellman et al,1997;Khaewpong et al, 1995). Página 16The main goal of this review has been to identify potential developments in terms ofsafetyinnovations for children in crashes, and in particular those associated with new methodsof childrestraint anchorage. The methods employed to achieve this have included documentsearches,patent searches and informal discussions with international child safety researchers.Since there isa particular emphasis on alternative anchorage developments, this issue will bediscussed first,followed by a summary of other innovative international developments.4.1 Alternative Anchorage Systems4.1.1 BackgroundDuring the 1990s the international child safety community joined forces to develop anew systemfor anchoring child restraint systems to vehicles. This concept, originally known asISOFIX, wasfirst proposed in 1991. An International Standard related to this concept was near tocompletion in1999 (Weber 2000). The initial proposal sought to develop a concept that would beinternationallyuniversal in its use, thereby overcoming incompatibility problems due to variations inchild restraintdesign, adult seat belt geometry and vehicle seat characteristics. The primary objectivesdriving thedevelopment of such a system were to reduce the incidence of misuse, and to improvethe overalllevel of protection provided by child restraint systems in crashes.The initial ISOFIX design proposed consisted of a four point system, that is, it requiredrigid
    • attachment of the child restraint system at each of the four lower corners. Losrepresentantes deCanada and Australia preferred a three point system consisting of two point lower rearanchorages,with a top tether.There were also concerns that the 4 point system would result in very heavy and muchmoreexpensive child restraint systems. A system was subsequently proposed that made useof two lowerrigid attachments which was favoured by many of the European task force members.The Canadiansand Australians (and later the USA) agreed with this lower anchor two point system, butindicatedthey would require the use of a top tether, since there were concerns about other meansofpreventing forward movement of the top of the child restraint system . However, nointernationalconsensus regarding how this could be overcome was reached. The final definitionincluded in 1999ISO 13216-1, requires two rigid lower anchorages “and a means to limit the pitchrotation of thechild restraint system”. In the USA and Canada regulations have already been drawn upregardingthis system with the inclusion of a top tether. In North America the new US standard,known asLATCH, was introduced on September 1, 2002. Both countries plan to continue toallow childrestraints to be installable in older vehicles and seating positions not equipped withloweranchorage using the current seat belt systems. To assist manufacturers to designrestraints that willbe compatible with rigid attachment and to “allow the attachment technology to evolveand betested in the market place”, the US regulation also provides for flexible lowerattachment straps.This provision is also included in the final Canadian regulation. Such non-rigidattachments consistof lower anchorages that utilize flexible webbing based attachments with an adjustmentsystem.These are commonly called semi-rigid anchorage systems. Such systems are nowwidely available inNorth America (Weber 2000; National Highway Transport Safety Administration2003). Inicialmente sewas thought the lower anchor would be two separate straps, but surprisingly a singlerunning loopof webbing has been allowed in North America.Currently there are a small number of vehicles available on the Australian market thathave in-vehicle attachments that meet the requirements of the ISOFIX International Standard.That is, some
    • 9RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/044. International Developments Página 17SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 10vehicles that are now imported into Australia have special rigid bars fitted to outboardrear seating posiciones. These “ISOFIX” anchorages provide rigid lower attachment points forchild restraints,which can be used to attach the restraint rather than using adult seat belts. Sin embargo,no haychild restraints available in Australia for use with such systems. In addition, the lack ofan AustralianDesign Rule for rigid anchorage systems means they are not regulated for strength orposition. Tempranofield indicators suggest that the ISOFIX anchorages may not be strong enough,suggesting that it isprudent for Australia to wait rather than implement this system immediately.As previously indicated, there are two ways in which a child restraint can be connectedto ISOFIXrigid bar anchorages. The first is via a rigid connection on the child restraint, ie specialrigid barsfitted to the child restraint that couple with the ISOFIX anchorages on the vehicle; andthe secondis via a flexible attachment on the child restraint. These two types are generally referredto as rigidand semi-rigid respectively.Rigid attachment of the child restraint to the ISOFIX anchorages is favoured in someparts of Europa. In North America the LATCH system allows for several different types ofsemi-rigidmethods of attachment. These range from a simple loop of webbing (similar inperformance to thelap portion of a seat belt) to tensioned, flexible straps attached to each side of the childrestraint.It is not widely understood that there are at least five distinct types of lower attachmentsallowedunder the LATCH system. These include: -Seat belt plus top tether (the current Australian anchorage method)Rigid ISOFIXLATCH with flexible untensioned loopLATCH with flexible tensioned loopLATCH with individual, flexible, untensioned strapsLATCH with individual, flexible, tensioned strapsA variety of child restraints using LATCH variants are now available in North America.4.1.2 International Standards and RegulationsThe US requirements are set out in their FMVSS 225 “Child Restraint AnchorageSystems”, the
    • equivalent of the Australian ADR34. These are mandatory requirements for newvehicles. En resumen,this specifies location and strength requirements for top tether anchorages (generallythree to beprovided for rear seating positions) and ISOFIX style lower anchorages (generally twopairs to beprovided for the outboard rear seats). The centre rear seat is not required to haveISOFIX loweranchorages but must have a top tether anchorage for this position so that a CRS can beinstalled,using the seat belt for lower restraint. Whilst a vehicle manufacturer could install 3 setsof loweranchorages, we are not aware of any US manufacturers who plan to do so.As indicated previously, ISO Standard 1316-1 “Road Vehicles - Anchorages in vehiclesand attachmentsto anchorages for child restraint systems” sets out requirements for the ISOFIXanchorages. Estosrequirements are essentially the same as those in the North American Standard (FMVSS225).At present there is no European regulation that requires vehicles to have ISOFIXanchorages.However, many new European vehicles have these anchorages. Potential problems withthis are:-Because they are not covered by an Australian government regulation, or at this stage aEuropeanregulation, there is no guarantee as to their strength or other aspects of compliance, andAd hoc feedback to members of the ISO CRS Committee is that there are reports ofthese voluntaryanchorages breaking in crashes. Página 18Nevertheless, the consumer program EuroNCAP indicates if these anchorages areprovided in itsconsumer brochures.In Europe, child restraint systems must be granted approval to ECE Child RestraintStandard ECE-R 44.Currently this standard does not cover ISOFIX devices, nor has the ISO Standard beenadopted asa component of ECE-R 44. It appears that the specification of the third anchorage (ananti-pivotanchorage, which can achieve its performance by a top tether or forward strut) that isstalling theinclusion of specifications for ISOFIX in Europe. The third anchorage specified inNorth America,is the top tether, however in Europe some German researchers continue to oppose theuse of toptethers. Langweider, Hummel, Finkbeiner and Roselt (2003) reported that a satisfactorysolution tothe top tether problem may have been found. Following a meeting of the ECE StandardsworkingGroup in December 2002 the following was decided:-
    • Forward facing ISOFIX devices with two lower anchorages and a top tether will berequired tomeet a forward displacement specification 50mm less than the current specification.Eso esforward displacement must be less than 500mmForward facing ISOFIX devices designed for use with two lower anchorage only (andno toptether) must meet the current ECE-R44 specification of a forward head displacement of550mmWhilst the proposed ISO Child Restraint Standard does not mandate top tethers, anadditionalanti-rotation system must be used. This can be either a support leg, a lower tether, anuppertether or a different form of tether.This continued to be the European status as at the ISO CRS meeting in September 2003.4.1.3 Evidence of Improved ProtectionA limited amount of laboratory testing of prototype rigid (and semi rigid) anchoragesystems hasbeen conducted both in Australia and elsewhere in the world over the past ten years.Los principalesbenefit of rigid lower anchors over the current Australian method of anchorage, in termsof crashprotection, is their ability to reduce sideways lateral displacement and rotation of childrestraints inside impact crashes (Kelly, Brown, Griffiths 1995, Brown et al 1997). Generally, infrontal impactcrashes crash sled testing has indicated that such systems will not provide significantadditionalprotection to that already being provided by the better Australian child restraints andcurrentanchorage systems. However, in child restraint systems where there is a difficult fit withthe vehicleseat (often because of seat contours to suit two rear adult occupants), the rigid systemhas thepotential to improve performance by providing a more rigid fit.With respect to the rigid versus semi rigid systems, an Australian study by Brown et al(1997)compared the performance of two point rigid lower anchorages, with and without toptether, withsemi rigid or webbing based lower anchorages, with and without top tether. This workconfirmedthe ability of the rigid system (with top tether) to significantly improve the performanceofAustralian child restraints in side impact. Contact between the child restraints tested andasimulated side door structure was completely prevented by the rigid system in both 45ºand 90ºside impacts. The two flexible lower anchors variant allowed by LATCH were found toprovide some
    • improvement over the current Australian system provided the web straps had no slack.Enparticular, there was a slight reduction in the sideways movement of the child restraintsystem andcontact with the door was prevented in the 45º impact. The webbing based systemallowed moresideways movement than the rigid system. To ensure best performance of webbingbased systems,they need to be as rigid as possible. The flexible couplings should be kept as short aspossible andbe attached to the child restraint as low down and as far back as possible. Moreimportantly,tensioning or retractor systems would assist the overall performance of lower anchorwebbingsystems (Brown et al, 1997). 11RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 19SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 12In Europe, where top tethers or upper anchorages are not used as part of theconventionalanchorage system, testing of both four point, and two point rigid anchorage systemshave shownimproved levels of protection in frontal impacts (Bell, Burleigh, Czerakowski, 1994;Lowne, Roy,Paton, 1997, Langweider et al, 2003).Many authors, like Brown et al (1997), have reported that the rigid system provides ahigher levelof protection than the non-rigid types. These authors have also noted that non-rigidsystems areparticularly susceptible to slack in the system (Lowne et al 1997). As previously noted,thesefindings support the need to investigate means for self tightening in non-rigid systems.The new LATCH system in North America includes a variety of forms of semi-rigidlower anchorage.There is an urgent need to compare the performance of the different types of flexiblecouplings. Esteis discussed in greater detail in Section 7.4.1.4 Ease of use and misuse of child restraintsOne of the primary drivers for the development of a new anchorage system for CRS wasto reducethe incidence of misuse. Therefore, researchers have been studying the ease of use ofsuch systemssince the early 1990s.Recently, in Germany. Langweider et al (2003) reported on a study of correctness ofinstallationusing ISOFIX type devices. These authors reported that they found 97% of ISOFIXforward facing
    • child restraints, and 100% of ISOFIX rearward facing child restraints were installedcorrectly. Estewas a vast improvement from earlier studies conducted by this group, which had shownthat almosttwo thirds of all installations using conventional anchorage systems in Germany werefound to be incorrecta.The Institute of Highway Safety recently released the results of a study investigating theusability ofa child restraint system equipped with LATCH anchorages in several models of vehicle. El Institutoof Highway Safety found: “Installation generally is easier and less complex withLATCH comparedwith the old way of routing safety belts through restraints to attach them to cars. Still,LATCHdoesnt always make it a simple click-in operation to install a restraint.”Results from this work also illustrated that both the shape of the vehicle seat and theplacement ofthe anchors for securing the restraints contributed to the ease of access, and thereforethe ease of uso. In addition, it was observed that the lower anchors in some vehicles were clearlyvisible, whilein other cases their deeply recessed position into vehicle seats made them difficult tolocate.Interestingly, the authors noted that while visible anchors generally made installationeasier, this was no siempre es así. They cited one example of a vehicle which had clearly visibleanchors butwhere installation proved difficult due to the position of the safety belt buckle whichimpededefforts to tighten the restraint straps.Another important observation from The Institute of Highway Safety study relates tothe removal of sistemas de retención infantil. The authors found that in some cases quick removalproved difficult. They gave theexample of a LATCH system incorporating a flexible hook which needed to bedepressed and thenrotated to allow removal. The authors also observed that there were various difficultiesassociatedin finding top tether locations in different types of vehicles.Finally, this study confirmed the concerns that the “flexible hook” (dog clip) style ofLATCHattachment is the most difficult to use, particularly when unclipping it from the ISOFIXanchorage.Results from The Institute of Highway Safety study provide important lessons forAustralia. Porexample, there may be a case for avoiding the use of flexible hook clips for lowerattachments in Australia. Likewise, results from such studies suggest it would be extremely wise toroad test
    • proposed anchorage systems in Australia prior to allowing, or mandating their use inAustralia. Laneed for this type of research is discussed in Section 7. Página 204.1.5 Possible Areas of Concern with ISOFIXWhile the concept of a new, more rigid lower anchorage system has the potential tohaveworthwhile benefits for Australia, particularly in terms of reducing misuse andincreasing sideimpact protection, there are a number of potential concerns that need to be addressedfirst.The current method of attaching child restraint systems uses an adult seat belt as themeans of tyingthe lower portion of a restraint system to a vehicle. The use of the adult seat belt as theloweranchorage is part of current mandatory anchorage requirements. Before this becamemandatory, theAustralian Standard allowed the lower portion of a child restraint to be anchored to thevehicle byeither a seat belt or dedicated straps. The use of dedicated straps were found to be aproblem, inthat child restraint fitting surveys conducted by the former NSW, Australia, TrafficAccidentResearch Unit (TARU) revealed insufficient attention was being paid to have systemsthat ensuredthese dedicated straps were tightly adjusted. This observation resulted in the Standardbeingamended to mandate the use of an adult seat belt as the lower anchorage attachment, andconsequently the abandonment of lower straps.The early Australian experience with loosely adjusted lower anchorage attachmentshighlights theneed for caution with the reintroduction of lower anchorage straps such as thoseinvolved in theLATCH system. Lower anchorage straps introduced as part of the LATCH systemshould at leastinclude self tensioning retractors or manual tensioners with visual tension indicators toensure firm montaje. There is a need to take preventative steps to ensure loose adjustment of loweranchoragestraps does not resurface as a problem in Australia.Another potential issue of concern raised by Kelly et al (1995) and Brown et al (1997)is related tothe separation distance between the two lower anchorages. If this distance is too wide,the systemwill reduce rear seating for children from three to two seating positions. This couldreduce thenumber of children that could be carried in the rear seat. The US regulation coveringrigidanchorages requires only two positions to have the lower anchors, and Weber (2000)reports that
    • the rigid anchors are unlikely to be provided in the centre rear seat position. Generally arestraintinstalled using the current seat belt anchor system will not fit between two devicesdesigned for thenew anchorage system. However, this does not need to be the case. Large andmedium/largeAustralian sedans could be designed to accommodate three CRS with three sets offlexible loweranchors (ie 6 anchor straps). One vehicle manufacturer in Australia has informallyindicated thatthey intend to provide 3 sets of flexible lower anchors.Many Australian families rely on fitting three children in the rear seat. It would beunfortunate ifthese families were forced to purchase vehicles with three rows of seats to have arestraint for each infantil. Around 40% of Australian children using child seats currently travel in thecentre rear seatingposition and it is desirable that this practice continues due to the inherent safety of thisseatingposition, particularly in side impacts.Of course in the foreseeable future, CRS will always be able to be attached using theadult seat beltas a lower anchorage for this position, and Australian experience suggests thatperformance withsuch CRS is good due mainly to the top tether. However, because they believe they arebetter, someparents will prefer to use ISOFIX/LATCH anchorages. Preliminary investigationsindicate that it maybe feasible to use the inboard ISOFIX anchorages from each side, if a flexible form ofLATCH systemis used on a CRS in the centre seat. Before this is adopted, there is a need to conductresearch todemonstrate the feasibility of the concept, and to review strength requirements of theanchorages(with three CRS across the back seat). Currently the US National Highway TrafficSafetyAdministration (NHTSA) advises against this configuration unless the vehiclemanufacturerspecifically states that this is acceptable.While ISOFIX lower anchorages should help to eliminate some forms of misuse inAustralia, there ispotential for new forms of misuse: 13RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Page 21SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 14Loose lower attachments (if tensioning attachments are not included)Difficulty engaging and disengaging the lower attachments could decrease their use(hopefully
    • the adult seat belt will be used where this happens)Any new system will take some getting used to. An advantage of current CRS systemsinAustralia is that they are very similar and parents are familiar with them - indeed, someyoungparents may have used the same style of CRS when they were children.Another potential problem with ISOFIX is extrication in an emergency. It is sometimespreferable thatthe child and child restraint be quickly removed from the vehicle together. This may bemore difficultwith some current LATCH attachments, compared with the current form of anchoragebecause thereare more straps to undo. Notwithstanding this, harnesses are not undergoing changehence the primaryform of removal through harness release remains unchanged. Emergency services oftenprefer totransport children in their child seat. This is because of a lack of child restraint systemsin ambulances.It also means the child can be removed from the vehicle, without disturbing the childsposture.4.2 Patent SearchesThe databases of the US Patent and Trademarks Office were searched for inventionsconcerningchild restraints. A total of 97 granted patents and 10 patent applications were reviewedforinnovative, worthwhile concepts. In short, there were none that are not alreadycommercially disponible. Many of the reviewed inventions showed dismal lack of understanding ofbasic physics.Some inventions appeared to introduce unnecessary safety hazards. Of the revieweddevices, thosedeserving mention are commented upon in the Appendix A.4.3 Commercial DevelopmentsNHTSAs website has comments about various child restraints on the market in the US.The notablyinnovative features of some of these restraints include:Level adjustment indicators for obtaining optimum angle of infant capsuleHarness shoulder height adjustment linked to height adjustable back rest (or headrestraint)Web tensioning systemsAnti-tangle harness holderChest clips.Some models of child restraints incorporating these types of features, as well as othersavailable inother countries, are discussed in the following section.4.3.1 US Models of Child Restraint SystemsBritax (www.britaxusa.com) has a wide range of CRS models in North America. TheExpressway,depicted in Figure 1, has rigid ISOFIX lower anchorages and a top tether. This modelalso has an anti-
    • submarining, anti-rotation feature called “pivot-link” that compresses the seat cushion.This model canbe used without a top tether, but Britax USA recommends that the top tether be used.La instalaciónmanual illustrates the method of attaching to the ISOFIX lower anchorages and thisappears to besimple and straightforward. No quantification on claimed performance improvementwas available.The Britax King is designed for use with an adult seat belt anchorage system only.Tiene unamechanism to tension the seat belt but the method of installation appears cumbersome.Nquantification on claimed performance improvement was available.To aid correct installation, Britax recently introduced “Perma-book” - a miniature,durable version of theinstruction manual that is permanently attached to the CRS. As manuals are reportedlyseparated almostimmediately from CRS, the advantages of this are obvious, and misuse surveys indicatepotential benefits. Página 22Fisher-Price and Cosco (www.coscoinc.com) have child seats available in NorthAmerica with avertically adjustable back piece that allows easy adjustment of shoulder harness height.This avoids therisk of the harness straps being incorrectly threaded when the height needs to beadjusted. Nuestro primerhand assessment confirmed the benefits of this design feature. An example seat isshown in Figure 2.New Lenox (www.smartchildseat.com) is about to market the Tattletale child seat inNorth America.This restraint has a sensor that measures the amount of tension applied by the adult seatbelt. Otros 15RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Figura 1Britax Expressway childrestraint available in América del Norte Figura 2Fisher Price Grow With MeChild RestraintFigure 3aRomer ISOFIX Child RestraintFigure 3bEasy Shoulder Harness Tensor Página 23SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 16sensors check that the harness is correctly
    • buckled. Attempts to obtain a sample forassessment have not been successful as atSeptember 2003.4.3.2 European Models of Child Restraint SistemasThe Maxi-Cosi Priori XP (www.maxi-cosi.nl) has“side impact protection”, a seat belt tensionersystem and easily adjustable shoulder harness de altura. The basis of the claim about side impactprotection is not clear from available documentación.RÖMER (www.britax-roemer.de) markets a rigidISOFIX child seat that also has easy shoulderharness height adjustment. This seat and itsshoulder harness adjustment mechanism areshown in Figures 3a and 3b.StorchenMuehle (www.storchenmuehle.de)market an Air-Seat booster seat that has an air-filled cushion to improve comfort. The 3-pointadult seat belt is used to restrain the child. Adjustable seat cushions are a possiblecomfort benefitbut do not appear to offer a safety benefit.Recaro (www.recaro-seats.co.uk) market the Start Topline booster seat. It has a tubularaluminumframe that is claimed to absorb energy in a crash. The seat cushion is designed to resistsubmarining.However, it is not clear how an aluminum frame offers benefits over plastic shells.4.3.3 Japanese Models of Child Restraint SystemsOSA, the National Organisation for Automotive Safety and Victims Aid recentlyintroduced a childrestraint consumer evaluation program (www.osa.go.jp). Most of the child seats testedby OSAappear to be of European design.The Takata MILIB6000 is a new Japanese child seat that has a wheel to alter the tilt ofthe child seatand is shown above. This is the main feature promoted in their advertisement.4.3.4 CRS Interaction with AirbagsProblems with interactions between passenger side, frontal airbags and child restraintshave led toa number of different airbag technologies. In North America, some vehicles areequipped withairbag switches which can be used to “turn off” an airbag in a position where a childrestraint might ser utilizado. In addition, there has been a great deal of development in the area ofsmart airbags. Estosairbags use different types of sensor technology to modulate airbag deploymentdepending on thetype or position of the occupant in occupant positions adjacent to airbags (Chen, Breed,Xu, 2003,
    • Breed, 1998). Breed (1998) explained how smart airbag technology can analyseinformation suchas the crash pulse, occupant sizes, positions, seat belt use, weight, and velocity data tocontrol airbag implementación.Only a limited amount of research appears to have been conducted on the interactionbetween CRSand rear seat side airbags. Researchers in the US and Europe are currently conductingtests todetermine whether a rigidly anchored CRS would expose the occupant to higher loads ifa sideairbag inflated against it, compared with a less rigid installation. It is assumed thatairbag design willbe modified if necessary. Figura 4Takata MILIB6000Child Restraint Página 244.3.5 Countermeasures to MisuseNHTSA recently released results of an “ease of use” rating of child restraint systems.La calificaciónsystem involved child restraints being given an overall ease-of-use rating at the “A”,“B” or “C” level.Such letter grades are also used to rate seats in each of the following categories:Whether the seat is pre-assembled or requires assembly after purchaseClarity of labelling attached to the seatClarity of written instructions on the seats proper useEase of securing a child in the seatThe rating system does not assess the installation of child restraints in particularvehicles, but israther a rating of child restraint design features.Australia, as part of the Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP) also conductconsumerorientated ease of use ratings. However, the rating included in CREP includesassessment of the easeof installation in a selection of popular vehicles.The International Standards Organization (ISO) has developed a standards orientatedassessment método. This standard defines a specific protocol for assessing misuse potential inuniformanchorage systems. To our knowledge no-one has adopted the ISO misuse protocol informal directrices. It is currently being reviewed and appears likely to become similar orequivalent to theInsurance Corporation British Colombia (ICBC) protocol on which the NHTSAprotocol is based.There is no formal assessment (Standard or regulation) of misuse potential in Australiaas it is nolonger on the Standards Committee work program. Nevertheless all devices submittedfor approval
    • to the Australian Standard are supposed to have been assessed on behalf of theirdistributor forpotential for misuse. The consumer program CREP attempts some assessment ofmisuse, howeverit requires updating, including a more objective approach. The ICBC Canadian andsimilar NHTSAmisuse assessment method appear to be suitable protocols.A new child restraint product, the “Tattle Tale 5-point Talking Car Seat, is reportedlyabout to belaunched in North America (www.smartchildseat.com). According to marketingmaterial, this seathas a 5 point harness system and can be used in the rearward or forward facing modes .Wheninquiries were made at the 2003 May and September meetings of ISO CRS, andsubsequently invisits to US experts in Washington and Philadelphia, researchers were unaware of thisparticularchild restraint. The seat is claimed to assist correct installation by providing an audiblewarningsystem that:-Includes an audible voice announcement that tells you when the seat is properlyinstalledIncludes voice announcements that pinpoint any installation problem to allow necessaryadjustments to be madeContinually monitors the quality of installation and restraint of the childWarns if the child climbs out of the seat.It would be appropriate to monitor the development of this innovation.4.4 Vehicle Seat DesignA recent study conducted in the United Kingdom (Le Claire & Visvikis, 2003),highlighted the needto include vehicle interior design characteristics in programs aimed at improving thelevel ofprotection provided to children in dedicated child restraints. Dedicated is defined asdesigned tosuit specific vehicles. This study investigated the reduction in the level of protectionprovided to 17RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 25SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 18children in dedicated child restraints when significant loading to the child and therestraint isallowed to occur through the vehicle seat backrest. In particular, Le Claire and Visvikis(2003)investigated the effect of vehicle seat back motion on the risk of injury to restrainedchildren.The study found that the greatest danger to the child does not generally arise due to therestraint actually
    • being loaded and the loads transferring to the child, but is due to forward motion of thevehicle seatwhich results in extra forward motion of the child restraint and therefore the childshead. Sin embargo, parachildren in booster seats the danger does arise from direct loading because the child canbe compressedbetween the loaded vehicle seat and the adult seat belt (Le Claire & Visvikis, 2003).According to Le Claire & Visvikis (2003), European regulations require vehicle seatbacks towithstand a dynamic test simulating loading with 38kg of luggage. They suggest thatthis needs tobe increased to a higher mass more representative of the loads that would beencountered in realworld crashes. The existing regulation currently allows a specific amount of forwarddeformationwhen the seat is subjected to dynamic loading. On the basis of their results, Le Claireand Visvikis(2003) recommend this allowable forward deformation also be reduced.Contrary to common expectation, the back rests of car seats are not strong enough torestrain a rearseat occupant or luggage. The seats can withstand their own weight in a 20g impact.This perceivedweakness can and does allow unnecessary injury.The impetus for Le Claire and Visvikis (2003) study was the observation of casescollected duringa field study of children being injured as a result of luggage loading the rear seat.Similar loadingthrough the back of the vehicle seat has been observed in Australia. In some instancesthis has ledto significant injury where injury would not have otherwise occurred. Le Claire andVisvikis (2003)also observed that small vehicles with rear seats with a split design sometimes posed asignificantthreat to rear seated children. The Australian Design Rules are not demanding in regardto seatstrength and the whole area of adequacy of rear seat strength and split seats appears tobe a potential problema. On the other hand, the low rate of reported problems may indicate that mostmanufacturers voluntarily design above minimum requirements and test for suchsituations.Occupant space for rear seated child occupants can be severely intruded by collapsingfront seats.This is a particular issue for small vehicles were rear seat occupant space is already at aminimum.This is a contentious issue in US litigation.Saczalski, Sances, Kumaresan, Burton and Lewis (2003) conducted a study of the injurypotential posedto children occupying rear seats from collapsing front seats. Various sized adult crashtest dummies were
    • placed in average strength front seats and a Hybrid III 3 year old was placed in abooster in the rearseat directly behind the adult dummy. Each different adult test dummy/Hybrid III 3 yearoldconfiguration was subjected to 3 different severity impacts ranging between 22.5 and42.5 km/h.Some studies suggest that soft tissue neck injury for adults in rear impacts can bereduced by seatback collapse. Downsides are:-It assists ejection of the adult which can lead to higher injury levels for the front seatedadults, andIncreased exposure to injury for rear seat child and adult occupants.4.5 Improved Side Impact ProtectionThe need to provide energy absorption in the side wings of dedicated child restraintsand boosterseats was mentioned previously. Although some work in studying the possibleimproved levels ofprotection was conducted by Brown and Griffiths at Crashlab in the early 1990s, noneof this workwas formally published. Elsewhere in the world, there has been very little attempted inthis area. Unrelatively recent paper, published in a biomedical journal, details a small test programstudying thebiomechanical effects of padding in child seats (Kumaresan, Sances, Carlin 2002).Infant dummy Página 26head drop tests on to surfaces were used to represent the interior of child restraint sidewings. Unvariety of materials, ranging from no padding to 19mm polypropylene padding wereinvestigated.Drop velocities of 2.2, 4.5 and 6.7m/s were used. The authors reported that the HeadInjury Criteria(HIC), peak acceleration and angular acceleration were reduced by up to 91%, 80%, and61%. Esteindicates significant potential reductions in head injury. This substantiates the potentialbenefits ofour proposal for improved side impact performance.Improved side impact test methodologies are currently under development or proposedin Europe,the US and Australia. Standards Australia is currently in the process of adopting a morestringentside impact test method.The increasing number of vehicles coming onto the market with side airbags has alsoraised someconcern in the international community regarding, the influence these airbags are likelyto have onchild occupants. According to Weber (2000) less than 1% of these vehicles have airbagsoperatingin the rear seats, but the proportion can be expected to increase. Weber (2000) alsoreports that
    • there have been no studies reported to date that children properly restrained in childrestraints ofany type will be at any increased risk of injury. However, Weber (2000) does citestudies that haveshown unrestrained children and out of position children could be injured by thesedevices.Recently, Tylko and Dalmotas (2003) reported on a test program involving childdummies seated inchild restraints that where exposed to in-vehicle, static, side mounted airbagdeployments as wellas full scale side impact crash tests. The results suggested that properly restrainedinfants andchildren occupying age appropriate child seats may receive some protective benefitsprovided thechild seat and the child occupant are correctly positioned. The results from this work arebeing usedby Transport Canada to develop some preliminary guidelines for parents and guardianscarryingchildren in vehicles equipped with side airbags.As mentioned earlier, the interaction between rigidly anchored CRS and rear-seat sideairbags needsfurther study.4.6 Improved Protection for Older ChildrenThere is scope for further work to improve the level of protection available for childrenin the 4 to10 years age and size range. North American researchers have recently published anumber ofpapers highlighting the low rate of booster use in this age group (Simpson, Moll,Kassam-Adams,Miller, Winston 2002; Durbin et al 2001; Winston et al 2001). This group is alsoworking toincrease the use of booster seats by children over 4 through education programs andlobbying forincreased legislative coverage.Durbin, Elliot and Winston (2003) recently published the results of a study examiningthe effectivenessof belt positioning boosters in preventing injury compared to adult seat belts in childrenaged 4 – 7.They found the odds for injury were 50% lower for children in the age range usingbooster seatscompared to children in this age range using adult seat belts. They use these results tosupport calls forextension of child restraint laws in many states in the US from 4 years old to 7 yearsold.This is the one significant area where both Australian practice and current developmentslag North Latina. North America has a large range of booster seats for children who haveoutgrown child seats.Simpson et al (2002) reported the findings of a study aimed at identifying barriers tobooster seat
    • use and strategies to increase their use. The study found that behavioural typedifferences such asrisk perception, awareness/knowledge, and parenting style existed in parents of childrenusingboosters compared to parents of children using adult seat belts. They concluded thatsuch findingswere useful in providing the necessary background for the development of messages toparentsaimed at encouraging booster use. They also noted the role the children actually play inthe decisionmaking process of the parent. While this work is not directly relevant to the primarydiscussions 19RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 27SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS20included in this document, it highlights the gap in child safety related research currentlyinexistence in Australia. No such work is currently being conducted, or has beenconducted inAustralia for at least a decade.A pilot research project examining the potential to improve booster seat design isunderway in NSW.This work aims to demonstrate the potential improvement available by ensuring achilds head iscontained by a booster in side impact.It is possible that the adoption of the new side impact test in the Australian Standardmay have someeffect on booster design in Australia. The Australian Standard CRS committee hasdiscussedeventually including the new side impact test for boosters. This test will almostcertainly removebackless boosters, or booster cushions from the market. Only boosters with largepadded sidewingsand lower anchorages are expected to be able to pass the test.Potential exists for much more work in this area. A consumer program could encourageearlieravailability of better boosters offering side impact protection. Página 28The high level of frontal protection mandated by the Australian Standard has resulted ininternational recognition as arguably the worlds toughest Standard. It was also the firstStandard toinclude a side impact test. Nevertheless, it was a simple test, and frontal protection is soeffectivethat better side impact protection has become the next “frontier” to conquer.A new additional side impact test has been specified in the current revision of theAustralian Norma. This test has been taken directly from the NSW CREP and differs from thepresent
    • Standard in that it provides a dynamic test of the capacity of a child restraint to retain itsoccupant’shead during a 90 oside impact, and includes the inclusion of a door structure. The previous sideimpact test was carried out on an open test rig so that there was no impact with anystructure duringthe critical phase of the event. The primary function of the old test was to assess foroccupantretention versus ejection. The new test assesses head injury potential in side impacts.The current method of attaching child restraint systems involves the use of an adult seatbelt as themeans for tying the lower portion of a restraint system to a vehicle. The use of the adultseat belt asthe lower anchorage is part of the current mandatory anchorage requirements.The issue of adoption or otherwise of ISOFIX or LATCH systems in Australia recentlyencounteredan impasse. (June to December 2003). The only thing the various parties could agreeupon was thatfurther research would assist more informed identification of the best way forward forAustralia.Research and development of a better side impact test to represent real crashes,encourage and fairlyassess better side impact protection is underway in Europe, North America andAustralia. Resultadosare not expected for two to three years (as at December 2003).5.1 Harmonisation of International Child Restraint StandardsAustralias Child Restraint Standard AS1754 has some unique requirements and CRSthat complywith ECE44 (the European regulations) or US standards will often not comply with theAustralian Norma. The Australian Standard has evolved to address deficiencies that have beenidentified byresearchers over the years, both in the field and in the laboratory. The Standard is seenby some asbeing design and trade restrictive, however, there is no evidence that Australianconsumers have topay any more for CRS than their European or US counterparts. There is good evidencethat thedesign restrictions are giving superior protection.Perhaps just as important, the method of installing and using all models of AustralianCRS is very similares. In overseas markets parents are faced with an overwhelming assortment ofCRSconfigurations, methods of attaching CRS to vehicles and methods of securing the childin the CRS.This results in confusion and high misuse rates. Furthermore, many of the overseassystems are lesstolerant to misuse and are more likely to be unsafe when misused.
    • “Keeping it simple” sometimes means that regulators need to be design restrictive. Estoha sidoone of the lessons learnt from nearly three decades of CRS experience in Australia –sadly sometimesonly after tragic events have occurred.5.2 Location of Top Tether AnchoragesIn contrast to the US FMVSS 225, Australian Design Rule (ADR) 34/01 “Childrestraint anchoragesand child restraint anchor fittings” has relatively stringent locations and accessrequirements for toptether anchorage points. The ADR has evolved over two decades to address deficienciesin child 21RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 5. Australian Standards Developments Página 29SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 22restraint installations. Europe and the USA have had relatively little experience in toptethers andso the development of more lenient requirements in those regions has been of concernto Australian investigadores. As all vehicles sold in Australia are able to comply with the moretightly controlledrequirements of the Australian Standard, there do not appear to be good reasons toexperiment withchildrens health by allowing more liberal requirements.The Australian vehicle industry is proposing FMVSS 225 as an alternative to ADR34.Másresearch is required on this issue but it is likely to show that protection for childoccupants may bereduced if the ADR was relaxed so as to allow a larger area for top tether mounting. Thelarger areawould allow top tether straps to be mounted at large offset angles. This could allowmore uppermovement of the child restraint, and more potential exposure to head injury for the childoccupant.Recent offset frontal crash testing by Australian NCAP revealed quite large forwardexcursions ofchild dummies in child seats where the top tether was attached to the back of the seat.En el marco deladditional loading of the child restraint and dummy the seat bent forward substantially.Mientras que ellocation of the top tether anchorage on the seat back helps user with access and avoidsinterferencefrom luggage, it is evident that more work is needed on the problem of excessiveforward excursion.Luggage anchorages are also becoming common in some vehicles. These could beconfused withtop tether anchorages. Better identification may be needed.
    • Head restraints for adult rear seat occupants are compounding problems of where tolocate toptether anchorages, and how to connect the child restraint to them. There may be a needfor a toptether guide mounted on top of the vehicle seat.5.3 Australian Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP)Although Australian road safety professionals recognised the strength of the AustralianChildRestraint Standard in terms of the level of protection provided approved CRS,researchers from theNSW RTA identified scope for improvement. Specifically, researchers carrying outroutine Standardsapproval testing found that although all devices given the Standards mark passed therigorousdynamic requirements, some devices achieved this in a manner that appeared to offermuch higherlevels of protection.Since the Australian Standard was already viewed as one of the most stringent childrestraintStandards in the world, the NSW RTA, NRMA and the Australian ConsumersAssociation (ACA)pooled their resources in 1992 to establish the CREP. The purpose in establishing CREPwas toovercome the undesirable variations in child restraint design and performance usingconsumerpressure rather than legislation.CREP has now been operating in Australia for a decade. In this program, child restraintsaresubjected to dynamic tests, some more severe than the Australian Standard and usabilitytrials. Laobjective is to help consumers choose the most effective restraints. It was realised earlyin thedevelopment of CREP that it would not be valid to apply dummy injury performancelimits to theratings because of the lack of appropriate, proven injury criteria and child dummies.These injurymeasurements are considered during the assessment process, but are secondary factors.Característicaswhich limit head excursion and head contacts have higher priority.The dynamic assessments are based on the Australian Standard, but involve additionaltest procedures,a number of which produce higher crash forces. In addition to the AS 1754 testsreferred to previously,a frontal test is conducted at a velocity 56km/h (the NCAP frontal crash test speed) anda decelerationof approximately 34g. A 90 oside and rear impact tests are conducted at the same velocity and with theorientation of the child restraint the same as for the Standards Australia tests. However,for the side
    • impact test, a structure replicating the interior of a side door is added to the testconfiguration. Unadditional side impact test is conducted at an impact angle of 45 degrees, with the doorstructure in su lugar. This measures the ability of the CRS to retain the childs head within thedevice. Página 30Preparations for the initial series commenced in 1992, with the series being completedin 1994.This was followed by a second series in 1996 and the most recent series in 2000.Continuación delthe initial series into an ongoing program is now managed and funded by the RTA,NRMA andRACV. The outcome is the publication Buyers Guide to Child Restraints which awardsa Preferredbuy rating to those restraints that comply with the CREP criteria. Care was taken indesigning theguide not to diminish the value of the Standards Mark.Despite the success of CREP the authors of this report have reservations about thevalidity of the2000 CREP ratings. It is these authors view that the evaluation process was flawed, andthat somehighly effective restraints have unfortunately missed out on a “preferred buy” rating.Los autoresbelieve that the program needs a larger funding base, so that it can have access to moreresourcesin the evaluation process. Objective “ease of use” tests need to be developed andincluded in CREP.Possible tests are being developed by NHTSA and ISO CRS. All evolved from theICBC test: ICBC’soriginal contractor is chairing the ISO CRS sub-committee developing the ISO test.There is also a need to review the dynamic assessment procedures included in CREP.Reviewing theCREP methodology would be timely in light of:-The major steps forward in standardised misuse and compatibility methods developedinternationally, andThe potential of new restraint anchorage systems.CREP could play a role in educating consumers about the benefits of improvedanchorage systemsonce the research has been conducted to identify the best development ofISOFIX/LATCH systemsfor Australia. Australia is unlikely to find any worthwhile crash performance benefitunless it adoptsa tensioned form of flexible lower anchors. An important associated issue is that bothISOFIX andLATCH only allow for two CRS for each rear seat, whereas current anchoragearrangements allow tres. As it would be highly undesirable to push families into bigger vehicles (eg 4WDs)there isa need for an Australian development of three lower anchorage points.
    • The Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) has been including childrestraints anddummies (in line with the EuroNCAP protocol) in vehicles being tested in both offsetfrontal andside impacts since 1999. Unfortunately, the EuroNCAP CRS evaluation procedures areseriouslyflawed and lead to misleading reporting of CRS performance. Australian NCAP hasmade strongrepresentations to EuroNCAP in this regard.The NHTSA has adopted a CRS consumer program based on ease of use alone. Theirconsumerprogram does not assess relative crash test performance on a sled. 23RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 31SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 24Of the safety innovations that have been reviewed in this report, the following areconsidered toprovide reasonable improvements in safety for the Australian situation.6.1 Visual Indicator SystemsAs reported earlier, child restraints in Australia offer high levels of protection, even inhigh-speed accidentes. This is particularly so when compared to some styles of child restraints soldin North América y Europa. There is, however, still scope for injury reduction throughminimising misuseby the use of low-cost engineering means. For example, a readily visible signal on aconspicuouspart of the child restraint could inform the carer whether the child restraint was correctlyattachedto vehicle, and whether the child was correctly harnessed into the child restraint.When the ISO CRS Committee met more than 10 years ago, and decided to create anInternationalStandard for child restraints, members compiled a list of things that they thought mustbe includedin any new Standard. This list included “visual indication” of correct attachment of thechildrestraint to the vehicle and the child restraint to the child. Unfortunately, somewherealong the way,this was dropped from the draft Standard.In Australia, child restraints are attached to vehicles:-At the base by the lap part of the adult seat belt, or, possibly in the future, two loweranchors, yAt the top by the top tether strap.A system to detect correct installation should assess correct attachment at the base andthe top.Children are attached to child restraints through a six point harness; however theseharnesses have
    • a single point adjuster so, in theory, only one sensor is needed. Correct use of theharness shoulderstrap height setting should also be monitored.To monitor the engagement of the system it is necessary to have sensors to detecttension, orotherwise, at four points on the child restraint, namely: top tether, two loweranchorages, and singlepoint harness adjuster.It is the authors view that to have the four sensors communicate their detection andfirmness ofengagement or otherwise to the equivalent of approximately four indicator lights (lowenergy lightemitting diodes or LEDs) on the upper part of the CRS, where they are clearly visible tothe carer.The detectors would be active and display both positive engagement and lack ofengagement. Lainitial concept envisages something like 4 green lights for all okay and up to 4 red lightsif part ofthe system is not okay.Power for the system should be self-contained - for example, a rechargeable batterycould becoupled to a small solar panel on the CRS. There is potential that all of this can be donefor aboutfive dollars.A simple means of getting the system to be able to communicate with the vehicledashboard displayshould also be considered. The idea being that if the vehicle manufacturer wanted sucha system,they would allow for a signal overlaid on the existing wiring harness, or wirelesstransmission directto dashboard sensor display. 6. Potential Safety Innovations for Australian Restraints Página 326.2 User Manual Permanently Attached to CRSBritax in the USA recently introduced an abbreviated version of its manual in a durablepaper. Lamanual is permanently attached to the CRS. It is common knowledge that the manual isusuallyseparated from the child restraint as soon as the packaging is opened, so that manualsare rarelyavailable for anyone other than the first user. The availability of a permanently attachedmanual onthe child restraint has potential to assist better ongoing correct use of the child restraint.6.3 Tensioned, Flexible LATCH-style Lower AttachmentsLate in the development of the ISOFIX system, US vehicle manufacturers proposed aflexible loweranchorage system called Universal Child Restraint Anchorage (UCRA). Severalmembers of the ISOCRS Committee conducted laboratory testing of the various systems. Much of thiscomparative
    • work was made available to the ISO CRS Committee, but was otherwise unpublished,particularlythe Australian work.A consistent outcome from the work was that the more rigid the coupling of the childrestraint tothe vehicle, the better the performance of the child restraint, particularly in side impactcrashes. Enother words the rigid ISOFIX system offered the best performance, with the flexiblelower rearcoupling performance being dependent on how they were coupled to the vehicle.A moderate level of lower rear slack reduction can be gained by the use of retractorsthat applytension to the lower straps. A system of this nature would require a mechanism torelease theretractor when removing the CRS from the vehicle. A possible disadvantage would bethe user hadto overcome the tension in the retractor during installation and removal, but this couldbe overcomeby careful design.Greater lower rear anchorage tensions could be achieved by the incorporation ofmechanicaltensioning devices in the base of the child restraint. These could be relatively low-cost,such aseither an adaptation of load webbing tension ratchet devices, or a knob turning a threadwhichpulled on a saddle to tension the webbing. Such devices readily exist, are conducive tomodification,and could be incorporated in the base of the child restraint.A major potential advantage of tensioned lower rear flexible anchorages is that theycould allow thefitment of three child restraint systems in the rear seat of a vehicle, whereas the rigidISOFIX systemlimits the number of child restraints to two.6.4 Rigid ISOFIX Style Lower AttachmentsA few models of CRS in Europe have rigid attachments to ISOFIX anchorages. Thesemay be simplerto use than flexible straps and may restrain the CRS more firmly, particularly in sideimpacts.However, in North America, these potential benefits were not seen as sufficient topreclude the useof flexible straps. Potential problems are that:Rigid designs appear to be more cumbersome and are more prone to installationdifficulties insome vehiclesIt may be more difficult to use adult seat belts where there is no ISOFIX anchorage, andOnly two rigid ISOFIX CRS can be used in the rear seat.6.5 Side Impact Protection MethodologyResearch conducted in Australia has shown that Australian child restraints fitted withtop tether
    • straps offer very high levels of protection in frontal impacts, with no significantimprovement infrontal crash performance to be gained by the use of more rigid lower anchorages. 25RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 33SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 26However, there is considerable scope for improvement in side impact protection. Theway that achild restraint can offer improved performance in side impacts is by:Preventing rotation of the child restraint to face the area of side intrusionPreventing sideways movement of the child restraint towards the area of side intrusionKeeping the childs head contained within the child restraintProviding energy absorbing padding in the shell of the child restraint, so that this energyabsorbing material is interposed between the childs head and the area of intrusion.The question then arises, what is an appropriate test of child restraint performance inside impacts.As discussed earlier, the Australian consumer program CREP conducted a side impacttest using atest bench seat with a side door and conducting impacts at 90 oand 45 o . This test is beingconsidered for mandatory inclusion in the Australian Standard.The proposed side impact test in the ISO CRS Standard uses a hinged swinging door.No hayplans for this tests adoption in Australia or North America at the present time. Itspotential adoptionin Europe appears to be stalled waiting for development of injury criteria and possiblybetter test maniquíes.The US government is committed to introducing a side impact test. These authorsinvestigationshave indicated that they think the ISO CRS test is too complex, can be tuned for, andmay not berepresentative. They are interested in finding out more about the Australian CREP test.Discussions with US researchers have indicated a common interest in developing amore universalside impact test with a flat faced intruding door. Possible Australian preliminary trialspecificationsfor such a test are angle of 63 o, velocity change of 50 km/hr, and depth of intrusion to bedetermined from further research including sources such as recent IIHS full scalelaboratory tests,Australian NCAP crash tests, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia in-depth side impactcrash studiesetc. The 63
    • oangle is the same as in the US moving barrier/side impact crash test for adultoccupants.6.6 Tensioning of Adult Seat BeltBritax have a design of CRS that automatically tensions the adult seat belt when therestraint isinstalled in the vehicle. The subsystem has not been tested in Australia. This issuperseded byseparate lower rear anchorages. It may have potential for carers seeking a more rigidrestraint invehicles where CRS continue to be attached by seat belts.6.7 Easy Adjustment of Harness Shoulder HeightSeveral overseas designs of CRS incorporate the harness shoulder slots in a back platethat can beadjusted vertically. This avoids the need to rethread the harness webbing when theharness heightneeds to be changed. This appears to be a particularly useful feature. It is not difficult toimaginethe potential benefits, for example, where different children must use the same CRS.Even for onegrowing child, it eliminates the potential for misuse when harness webbing has to berethreadedthrough different shoulder height slots. Further advantages are:-That height adjustment can be more gradual rather than in distinct steps, andThe side impact protection and support for the childs head can maintain better optimalpositionwith respect to the head.It would be useful to obtain a number of these devices and assess their ease of use inAustralia. Página 346.8 Anti-submarining Seat Design“Submarining” is the term used to describe an occupant sliding partially forward undera seatbelt,or the lap part of a seat belt sliding up off the bony pelvis, into the soft abdomen.Some European models claim that the seat of the CRS has anti-submarining features.Esto no es unsignificant issue with Australian CRS that use double crotch straps, as double crotchstraps preventsubmarining. However, this could have potential for booster seats which do not havecrotch straps.6.9 Chest ClipsMany US and European CRS are supplied with chest clips that are intended to keep theshoulderstraps in place. The Australian Standard requires CRS to meet rigorous performancerequirementswithout chest clips. Australian researchers have traditionally regarded chest clips as apotentialneck/breathing hazard. Since the mandatory introduction of double crotch straps, thereis no
    • known scientific material to support the ongoing banning of chest clips, however thereis also nostrong case for their introduction in Australia. At the present time there is no compellingevidenceto review this situation.6.10 Top Tether GuidesThe development of better head restraint systems for adult rear seat occupants invehicles has inmany cases:-Made it more difficult to attach the top tether strap, andPotentially lowered top stability of the CRS.Examples include top tethers which have to pass over the top of a head restraint, or toptetherswhich need a dual strap to go around head restraints. Such systems probably only have amoderateaffect on frontal impact performance, however their inherent geometry is likely to allowsignificantlyincreased lateral deflection in side impacts. We are told that there has been someunreported sledtest work in Australia which demonstrates this phenomenon. 27RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 Página 35SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 28An attachment here shows the kind of programs and rationale for current NorthAmerican programs(GWU). They seem to be focussed on problem definition, whereas these authors believewe haveprogressed beyond that to a need for development of implementable solutions.Based on potential benefits in Australia and the state of available technology, theseauthors believethat the areas which offer potential for worthwhile improvement of Australian childrestraintsinclude:-Visual indicator systems to eliminate behavioural misuse through engineering meansDevelopment of a simpler, more universal side impact test incorporating some intrusion,andmore biofidelic ways of assessing energy absorption for a childs head.Development and availability of tensioned lower rear flexible anchorages. Initially thiswill needto be an Australian initiative, because Europe is committed to rigid, and USA is in itsearlyexperience days with top tethers.Assessment and marketing of simpler height adjustment for shoulder strapsPermanent attachment of user manuals to CRS.Incorporation of top tether guides on vehicle seat back tops for more rigid lateralattachmentand hence better side impact performance. Adult head restraints may need a holethrough them
    • for top tether strapsImproved booster seat design, with side impact protection, anti-submarining features,andseparate attachment to car seat. 7. Safety Innovation with Greatest Potential for Australia Página 368.1 CRS Design and Use IssuesTo justify changes to Standards, regulations and consumer test programs furtherresearch isrecommended for most of recommended innovations. Further research prioritiesinclude:-1) Developing a cost-effective visual indicator system for misuse reduction - this wouldinvolvemechatronics research and development of prototype systems, in consultation with CRSmanufacturers and vehicle manufacturers.2) Investigations of side impact issues - this would involve a range of sled tests tocompare existingand conceptual CRS and a range of attachments to the vehicle. CHOP Traumalink USAhasindicated they may be able to provide some virtual modelling to simulate other crash características. ANCAP side impact test data would also be useful to evaluate.3) Acquiring and assessing a range of CRS with innovative features from around theworld4) Comparing CRS performance in severe frontal crashes - this would include a seriesof crashbarrier tests using selected models of large and small cars. A repeat of the variablespeed (from40km/h to 100km/h) crash test conducted by Crashlab in the mid 1990s is proposed.Esto espartly in response to criticisms from Europe that vehicle bodies have become stiffersince thosetests were conducted and therefore children in forward facing CRS could be exposed tohigher fuerzas. ISOFIX/LATCH attachments could be compared alongside current Australiandesigns(top tether and adult seat belt) in these tests.5) Use of the most recent, and biofidelic, Q-series child dummies in the test program.En particular,the prototype Q3S. For older children, the new Hybrid III 10 year old with slouch pelvisis most apropiado. Previous child dummies have severe limitations for prediction of injury risk.6) A review of test and rating methods for CRS consumer programs currently operatingin Australiaand Japan and proposed programs in Europe and North America.8.2 Vehicle Design IssuesVehicle design issues that may require further research are:Provision for ISOFIX anchorages in the ADRRouting top tethers around rear seat head restraintsThe top tether location requirements in the ADR could be tightened up to improveaccessibility
    • y el rendimientoWhere a top tether depends on seat back strength then the seat back should be strongenoughto prevent forward excursion of the CRS in a frontal crash. A recent ANCAP crash testrevealedexcessive excursion of the CRS where the top tether anchorage was located on the seatback.Luggage tie down anchorages in some vehicles could be confused with top tetheranchoragesThere is a need to assess CRS to vehicle compatibilityRear seat (particularly split rear seats) and front seat (particularly in small cars) seatstrength 29RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 8. Research Requirements Página 37SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 308.3 Consumer ProgramsExperience from the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) has demonstrated thatconsumerinformation programs, when effectively operated, can significantly influence both theproducts thatpeople buy and (possibly more importantly) the products on the market.The Australian Child Restraint Consumer Program was initiated by Michael Griffithsand Paul Kellywith the objective of ensuring there was no degradation in the levels of protectionoffered by childrestraints sold in Australia. It was initially intended to update the program regularly.Unfortunately, the last iteration of the program saw the evaluation of the tests resultsperformedwith an evaluation on different biomechanical criteria than that used for the originaltests. Esteappeared to utilise unvalidated head injury criteria, rather than focus on the moreimportant issueof head excursion.This program is overdue for an overhaul. It needs to be revised so as to represent currentknowledge, and be structured so as to encourage new safety innovations.In addition to reviewing and upgrading the technical aspects of the Australian ChildRestraintEvaluation Program, it would benefit from broadening its bases of supporters, and forimproving itsaccessibility and usefulness to parents and carers.8.4 Standards and RegulationsRecommendations for amendments to the Australian Standard for Child Restraints andADR forCRS anchorages would arise from further research.Nevertheless, the reality is that in 1989, Australian States ceded their power to makerules about
    • vehicle construction to the Federal Government. This significantly reduced the ability ofthe States,and to a degree motoring organisations, to influence the Federal rule-making process.It was the lack of ability to influence development of Australian Standards and DesignRules whichcreated the need for the child restraints consumer program CREP.8.5 International IssuesAustralian field research with child restraint systems, and laboratory sled test researchprogramshave historically had a significant influence on overseas developments in childrestraints. Australiais still regarded as a world leader in the area of child restraints. The recent adoption oftop tethersin the US, and ongoing alliances of Australian researchers with US researchers willcontinue toenhance the prospects of future harmonisation with North America.With the reduction in Government sponsored road safety research, particularly in thefield of childoccupant protection, there is a real danger of Australia falling behind in this field. IfAustralianchildren are to continue to be provided with worlds best practice safety systems, thenAustralia willneed to continue its lead role in this area.8.6 Ongoing MonitoringThe authors recommend that surveys and CRS sales data be evaluated to monitor theuptake ofsafety innovations (and CREP “Preferred buys”). This should be an ongoing function,undertakenevery two years - possibly in conjunction with well-designed misuse surveys.CRS to vehicle compatibility should be assessed - possibly as part of the ANCAPconsumer program.Trends with top tether location and confusion with luggage tie-downs could also bemonitored.Ongoing monitoring of the outcome of both restrained and non restrained children incrashes is also importantes. Página 38The main ways to implement innovative improvements to Australian CRS are throughconsumertest programs such as the CREP program and through changes to the AustralianStandards andADR34. Past experience has shown that the CREP program is the most effective way toencouragethe introduction of new features.There is a considerable program of research to be conducted to truly progress Australianchildrestraint design and correct use. 31RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 9. Implementation Strategies
    • Página 39SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 32This review set out primarily to look at innovation and developments in child restraints,and childrestraint attachments systems that could offer improved level of protection forAustralian child car ocupantes.Areas for innovation this research project identified were:-Reduction in misuse through the introduction of visual indicator systems. A visualindicatorsystem would be integrated into the child restraint system which indicated to theconsumerwhether the child restraint was correctly installed in the vehicle, and whether the childwascorrectly harnessed in the child restraint.Improved booster seat design for an older range of children, incorporating side impactprotection and anti-submarining features.Provide better lower fixation of the child restraint system through the adoption of avariant ofthe North American system. This would use two flexible lower anchor straps, one foreach lowerrear corner of the child restraint, which are tensioned after installation so as to provide anearrigid installationIntroduction of a more demanding side impact test for child restraints. To pass such atest, it isenvisaged that a child restraint would require padded energy absorbing side wings, andthechilds head be contained by the harness arrangement within these wings.Variable height shoulder harness adjustment to be achieved through a continuouslyvariablesystem rather than the need for rethreading the harness straps through slots at differentheights.Permanent attachment of user manuals to the child restraint system.In summary, in terms of relative levels of protection offered to vehicle occupants,children are wellcatered for in Australia. Nevertheless, there is scope for development of child restraintsystemswhich offer even higher levels of occupant protection and, more importantly in the shortterm,scope to develop innovation in child restraint systems that greatly reduces the likelihoodofincorrect installation. 10. Observaciones finales Página 40Angran, P., & Winn, D. (1989) Injuries among 4 to 9 year old restrained motor vehicleoccupants by seatlocation and crash impact site. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 143 (11),1317-1321.
    • Arbogast, KB, & Moll, EK (2001). Factors influencing paediatric injury in side impactcollisions. Journal ofTrauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care, 51 (3), 469-477.Bell, R., Burleigh, D., & Czerakowski, W. (1994). ISOFIX: The potential of a universalvehicle/child restraintinterface for misuse reduction and performance enhancement. 38 ªSTAPP Car Crash Conference.Breed, D. (1998). A smart airbag system . Paper presented at the 16 ªInternational Technical Conference on theEnhanced Safety of Vehicles.Brown, J., Kelly, P., & Griffiths, M. (1997). A Comparison of Alternative AnchorageSystems for Child Restraints inSide Impact, SAE 973303. Paper presented at the Child Occupant Protection, 2 ªSymposium ProceedingsSociety of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale PA.Brown, J., Griffiths, M., & Paine, M. (2002a). Effectiveness of child restraints: TheAustralian experience. ResearchReport 06/02, Australian Automobile Association.Brown, J., & Bilston, L. (2003). Child occupant research project: Preliminary results.Paper presented at the RoadSafer Kids Seminar, Sydney.Brown, J., & Bilston, L. (2002). Child restraint use and misuse. Paper presented at theChild RestraintsWorkshop, Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Adelaide.Carlsson, G., Norin, H., & Ysander, L. (1991). Rearward-facing child seat. The safestcar restraint for children?Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23 (2-3), 175 - 182.Chen, T., Breed, D., & Xu, K. (2003). Development of an optical occupant positionsensor system to improvementfrontal crash protection. Paper presented at the 18 ªInternational Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safetyof Vehicles.Durbin, DR, Kallan, MJ, & Winston, FK (2001). Trends in booster seat use amongyoung children incrashes. Paediatrics, 108 (6):E109Durbin, DR, Elliot, MR, & Winston, FK (2003).Belt-positioning booster seats andreduction in risk of injuryamong children in vehicle crashes . The Journal of the American Medical Association,289 (21), 2835 – 2840 2835 – 2840 .Ebel, BE, Koepsell, TD, Bennet, EE, & Rivara, FP (2003). Too small for a seatbelt:Predictors of boosterseat use by child passengers. Paediatrics , April 111 (4 pt 1), 323 - 327.Gotschall, CS, Better, AI, Bulas, D., Eichelberger, MR, Bents, F., & Warner, M. (1998).Injuries to childrenrestrained in 2 and 3 point belts. Association for the Advancement of AutomotiveMedicine 42
    • ªAAAM, 29 - 43.Griffiths, M., Brown, J., & Kelly, P. (1994). Child restraint system development inAustralia. Paper presented at the 14 ªInternational Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.Henderson, M. (1994). Children in car crashes; An in depth study of car crashes inwhich child occupants wereinjured. Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia, New South WalesDivision.Henderson, M., Brown, J., & Paine, M. (1994). Injuries to restrained children. Paperpresented at the Associationfor the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 38 ªConference AAAM Des Plaines IL.Henderson, M., Brown, J., & Griffiths, M. (1997). Children in adult seat belts and childharnesses: crash sledcomparisons of dummy responses. Proceedings of the 2nd Child Occupant ProtectionSymposium, SAE P-316.Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, (2003). LATCH kids in cars – but the task stillisnta breeze. Status Report,38 (5), 1. 33RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04 11. Referencias Página 41SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 34Isaksson-Hellman, I., Jakobsson, L., Gustafsson, C., & Norin, H. (1997). Trends &effects of child restraintsystems based on Volvos Swedish accident database, S AE 973 229. Child Occupant 2 ªSymposium Society ofAutomotive Engineers, Warrendale PA.Kelly, P., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Child restraint evaluation program . Proceedings ofthe 15 ª InternacionalTechnical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia.Kelly, P., Brown, J., & Griffiths, M. (1995). The performance of rigid anchoragesystems with and without top tether.International Conference on the Biomechanics of Impact Injury IRCOBI Switzerland,75 - 93.Khaewpong, N., Nguyen, TT, Bents, FD, Eichelberger, MR, Gotschall, CS, &Morissey, R. (1995). Injuryseverity in restrained children in motor vehicle crashes, SAE 95271. Paper presented atthe 39 ªSTAPP Car Crash
    • Conference, Society of Automotive Engineers. Warrendale PA .Kumaresan, S., Sances Jr, A., & Carlin, F. (2002). Biomechanical analysis of padding inchild seats and headinjury. Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation, 38, 453-458.Langweider, K., Hummel, T., Finkbeiner, F., & Roselt, T. (2003). The significance ofISOFIX in reducing misuse –Analysis of potential on the basis of field observations and sled tests. Paper presented atthe 18 ª InternacionalTechnical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.Le Claire, M., & Visvikis, C. (2003). The influence of rear loading on the protection ofchild car occupants in childrestraints . Paper presented at the 18 ªInternational Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.Lelande, S., Legault, F., & Pedder, J. (2003). Relative degradation of safety to childrenwhen automotive restraintsystems are misused . Paper presented at the 18 ªInternational Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety ofVehicles.Lowne, R., Roy, P., & Paton, I. (1997). A comparison of the performance of dedicatedchild restraint attachmentsystems (ISOFIX) . Paper presented at the Second Child Occupant ProtectionSymposium, November.Morris, SD, Arbogast, KB, Durbin, DR, & Winston, FK (2000). Misuse of BoosterSeats. InjuryPrevention, 6 (4), 281 - 284.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2003). Available on:http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/announce/press/pressdisplay.cfm?year=2003&filename=pr24-03.html. Accessed 17May, 2004.Paine, M. (1998). Child restraint surveys in New South Wales: 1998 . RTA ResearchReport 98/3 , November.Rattenbury, SJ, & Gloyns, PF (1993). A population study of UK car accidents in whichrestrained children werekilled . Child Occupant Protection Symposium: San Antonio.Saczalski, KJ, Sances Jr., A, Kumaresan, S., Burton, JL, & Lewis Jr., PR (2003).Experimental injury studyof children seated behind collapsing front seats in rear impacts. Biomedical SciencesInstrumentation, 39,250 - 265.Simpson, EM, Moll, EK, Kassam-Adams, N., Miller, GJ, & Winston, FK (2002).Barriers to booster seatuse and strategies to increase their use. Paediatrics, 110 (4) 729 - 736.Tylko, S., & Dalmotas, D. (2003). Side airbags: Evaluating the benefits and risks forrestrained children. Paperpresented at the 18 ª
    • International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles.Weber, K. (2000). Crash protection for child passengers: A review of best practice.UMTRI Research Review,31 (3), 1-25.Weinstein, EB, Sweeney, MM, Garber, M., Eastwood, MD, Osterman. JG, & Roberts,JV (1997). Theeffect of size appropriate and proper restraint use on injury severity of children. Paperpresented at the ChildOccupant 2 ªSymposium Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale PA.Winston, FK, Durbin, DR, Kallan, MJ, & Moll, EK (2000). The danger of prematuregraduation to seatbelts for young children. Paediatrics, 105 , 1179 - 1183. Página 42Application 20020047252 “Supplementary Restraint System” proposes to use an airbagbuilt into ajacket that is worn by the child. It appears that the technology is unproven (it is likely tobe difficult todevelop).Application 20020024205 “Belt Force Sensor” is a strain gauge sensor device thatattaches to beltwebbing and measures belt tension. Better devices are already available.Application 20020175546 “Kinetic child restraint device” is an infant with transverseand longitudinalaxes of rotation - the intention being to “automatically pivot a child forward, rearwardand sideways toposition the head, neck and back of the child perpendicular to the impact force”. It isimaginative butthe effects of inertia appear to have been ignored.Patent 5,549,356 “Child restraint system” uses a retractor mechanism for harnessshoulder strapsassociated with a T-shield system. Not applicable to Australia, where shields are notused.Patents 6,030,047 and 6,491,348 “Child vehicle seat with child restraint harnessadjustmentmechanism” has a mechanism to allow vertical adjustment of the back portion of thechild seat, togetherwith the shoulder straps. This avoids the need to re-route the harness straps to adjusttheir height. LaCosco Alpha Omega child seat incorporates this design (Cosco was an assignee to thepatent).Patent 5,839,793 “Child seat harness clip” and 5,902,016 “Child restraint harness clip”are differentdesigns of clip to link the shoulder straps in front of the childs chest. Such clips are notnormally used Australia.Patent 6,390,560 “Motorized rigid child restraint seat anchor” (assignee Toyota)appears to be a
    • motorised mechanism to give improved access to ISOFIX style lower anchorages. Theneed for such amechanism is questionable.Patent 6,354,648 “Mounting for child restraint system in a vehicle” is an adaptor platethat clips ontoa floor-mounted plate and provides a pair of ISOFIX anchorage points. The need forsuch a deviceis questionable. 35RACV RESEARCH REPORT NO 04/04Appendix A: Patent search results6,491,3482002017546 Página 43SAFETY INNOVATIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN CHILD RESTRAINTS 36Patent 6,155,638 “Child restraint seat havingamplified motion harness adjuster” (assigneeFisher-Price) is a somewhat complicatedmechanism for adjusting the height of harness correas.Patent 6,485,055 “Anchorage system andapparatus for a child safety seat and method ofusing same” (assignee Honda) is a design ofmounting plate for an ISOFIX style lower anclaje.Patent 5,135,285 “Twin shoulder belt adjustmentmechanism for a child restraint system” (assigneeChrysler) is an early and cumbersome device foradjusting harness shoulder height. Better designswere subsequently developed.Patent 4,822,102 “Seat belt buckle for childrestraint” (assignee General Motors) is amodification to an adult seat belt buckle to allowattachment of a dog-clip style CRS strap. Ladescription does not indicate what method ofattachment should be used for the other side,where there is no buckle.Patent 4,762,364 “Child restraint device”incorporates a swivel base in the CRS. Apparentlythis is to make it easier to place the child in the CRS. There is at least one CRS available inAustralia with a swivel base. It appears to have nosafety benefits.Patent 4,681,368 “Child restraint bassinet”(Assignee Safe-N-Sound) covers the innovativeinfant capsule that was invented in Australia.Patent 4,345,791 “Child restraint system formotor vehicle” (assignee Ford Motor Company)covers a rearward facing CRS that can be detached
    • from its base.6,354,6486,390,5604,681,368 Página 44Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) LtdABN 44 004 060 833550 Princes HighwayNoble Park North, Victoria 3174 AustraliaTelephone (03) 9790 2863 (03) 9790 2863Facsimile (03) 9790 2629 www.racv.com.au