Search Results

The performance advantage of seat belt pretensioners is well documented. But what is the effect for child restraints? We tested four categories of CRS with and without seat belt pretensioners on adult seat belts, using the ECE44.03 dynamic test. We compared outcomes in terms of head excursion, head and chest deceleration and HIC (“Head Injury Criterion”) and used a common type of pyrotechnic pretensioner. For infant restraints, pretensioned conditions lead to a reduction in head excursion and HIC. Two forward facing toddler seats showed lower HIC, and one a large reduction in excursion. Pretensioning led to reductions in HIC for forward facing impact shield boosters and for belt positioning boosters. Three CRS were also tested in a pre-impact braking mode, with and without pretensioner. Here the differences were less pronounced. On the whole, pretensioners did improve the outcome for CRS, in particular for designs which did less well in the “normal” mode.

The design and manufacture of child restraints (CRS) is dependent upon the child restraint standard. Our comparison of the US FMVSS 213 and the ECE R44.03 highlights the many gross similarities and the detail differences, which distinguish the standards. As both standards now use the same dummy, comparison testing is possible. It demonstrates that the acceleration loads in both dynamic tests are similar while the dummy kinematics displayed by the CRS are dramatically different. The detail differences in the standard have however lead to different designs in the two jurisdictions, so that modern CRS from one market cannot be exported to the other without difficulty. Looking forward to the upcoming standards for universal CRS anchorages; if one feels that competition is desirable for the improvement of this product category, closer harmonization of the standards will be required.

The performance of child restraint systems (CRS) in precise and constant laboratory testing and their effectiveness in real-life-accidents may differ substantially, mainly due to the variety of interface conditions between motor vehicles and CRS and to misuse of the CRS by the consumer. These differences may grossly impair the safety performance of CRS in a traffic crash. Most accident reports available to crash researchers lack detailed data on crash severity that can be related to injury severity. However, reports usually include full information on injuries of all occupants. The paper proposes a comparison of the injury rate of restrained children and belted adult occupants, the latter “substituting” the unknown data on crash seventy. Given a sufficient number of accident reports, the effectiveness of CRS under real-life-conditions can be assessed, providing a very useful tool, particularly for CRS manufacturers.

ISOFIX is a proposal for a standardised attachment system for child restraints, which has been advanced as a means of improving usage, and reducing misuse. This study investigates ISOFIX in two ways. Consumers in Germany. Sweden and the UK were observed while installing ISOFIX and conventional systems. Dynamic testing was used to compare the two product installation principles in terms of performance. The consumer evaluation supports the thesis that ISOFIX can reduce misuse. ISOFIX was judged to be uniformly and greatly preferred by consumers in the three countries. Improved test performance, e.g. reduced head excursion, was found. Both findings indicate the potential for the reduction of injury through the institution of ISOFIX.