the child passenger safety technician technical webinar will begin at 10:00 am safetybeltsafe u.s.a....

The Child Passenger Safety Technician

Technical Webinar will begin at 10:00 am

SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. www.carseat.org

Please remember to mute your phone – BUT DO NOT PUT US ON HOLD!!! Thank you!

California Department of Public Health Vehicle Occupant Safety Programwith the support of California Office of Traffic Safety

Child Passenger Safety TechnicianTechnical Webinar

September 25, 2014


Stephanie M. Tombrello, LCSW, CPSTIKate Quirk, PhD, CPSTI

Topics• Upcoming Events

• Research Review: Autos for Teens; ATVs

• Tech Question: Children and Pickup Trucks

• Kidz in Motion:

• Vehicle/Safety Seat Incompatibility: Data to Help Parents Select Safety Seats

• Why No Global Safety Seat?

• CEU Process

+


• Special Exhibit: SBS USA at American Academy of Pediatrics National Convention

• October 11-13, 2014

• San Diego Conference Center

• Thanks to VW Group of America

+


Upcoming Events: San Diego

Research Review:Vehicles: Good Choices for Teens


Status Report, Vol. 49, No. 5 Special Issue: Vehicles for Teens, July 16, 2014

Risks to Teens: Comparison of fatality rates for 15-17 year olds with 35-50 year olds: • Teens: 29% in mini-cars, 82% older vehicles• Adults: 20% mini-cars, 77% older vehicles

+

Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.



Key Data: Telephone survey:

• 83% of parents buy used cars or share older vehicles already owned by family.

• $9800 average price, but median price only $5300.

• Hard to find safest cars under $5300.



• Design for Choosing:

Principles built on comparative fatality statistics• No “muscle cars” to tempt teen drivers to speed,

race, etc.• Vehicles with electronic stability control essential.• Heavier vehicles; exclude mini or small cars.• Highest safety ratings possible, including side-

impact protection, good test results on moderate overlap crashes, good head restraints, NHTSA 4-5 Stars on NCAP tests.



Vehicle Recommendations:• Both Best and Good Choices among all types of vehicles

meeting IIHS criteria but few at $5300 median or less:

• Best Choices, lowest cost: $7300 (Volvo XC90, ‘05 or earlier)

• Good Choices, lowest cost: $4600 (Kia Sedona, ‘06 or later)

Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use


“ATV riding and helmet use among youth aged 12–17 years, USA, 2011: results from the YouthStyles survey”, R. A. Shults & B. A. West, Injury Prevention, published online 6/10/14 • Based on YouthStyles online survey conducted by Porter, Novelli.

• ATV defined as 3- or 4-wheel vehicle ridden astride and meant for use on non-paved roads; may weigh up to 1000 lbs.

• 10.6 million 4-wheel ATVs in U.S. [Note: often have replaced horses in rural areas.]

• Subgroup of 12-17 year olds whose parents answered HealthStyles online survey earlier in 2011. Weighted survey included 833 teens.

+




Focus: how much travel on ATVs by teens?

• Asked for estimate in months; review of data led to focus on differences among those stating “never” vs. one trip vs. 6 or more trips.

• Grouping of answers on frequency of helmet use led to always vs. not always (including the range from never to nearly always).



Findings: grouped by • gender • U.S. regions (northeast, mid-west, south, west) • urban (50,000 population or more) vs rural

Overall, 25% rode at least once in past year but varied from 23-28% by region and on urban/rural axis: 22% vs 44%

Helmet use: 45% Always, 10% Seldom, 25% Never

+




Helmet Use: additional findings by subgroup ‘Always’:• Gender: Male & female: 45% • Location: Urban, 47% vs. rural, 39%• Frequency of riding:

once a year: 68%; 2-5 times/year: 48%; 6 or more times annually: too few to establish

meaningful % (not always, 81%)• 3 times as many males as females rode 6 or more times

in year: data link to prevalence of death/injury for males



Size of the Problem:

Consumer Product Safety Commission statistics

• 30 years from 1982: 12,391 fatalities, 24% for children under age 16;

• 2008 (most recent year with firm, final data): 14% of 755 deaths were under age 16.

• Emergency room visits: 2012 – 107,900 of which 25% were under 16.

+




Social issues:Consumer Product Safety Commission recommends: • Youth under 16 not ride adult-sized ATVs • Helmets be used • No passengers be carried. No truly effective method so far for achieving goals so far.

Most state laws exclude private property, have many options for not prosecuting violations. Dealers only must “try their best” not to sell adult-sized ATVs for youth use!

Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks


Issue: significant additional risk to child passengers in compact extended cab pickup trucks.

Data: ‘Risk of Injury to Child Passengers in Compact Extended-Cab Pickup Trucks’, Winston et al., Journal of the American Medical Association 2002, 287, 1147 – 52

• Review of crashes 1998 - 2000 • 126,907 vehicles, 189,962 children of which pickups: 7192

vehicles, 11335 children)



Results

• 3x risk of injury to children in compact extended cab pickups

4x risk of injury to children in rear seat Slightly increased risk to children in front seat

• Children 4x more likely to be hospitalized

• No increased risks in full-size pickup cabs

• No information on restraint other than “restrained” and “unrestrained”


Causes

• Limited space – increase contact with front seat

• Reduced padding on front seats

• Side-facing ‘jump’ seats

• Two-point seat belts (lap-only belts) common in older vehicles




Conclusions:

• Increased risk to children in compact extended pickup truck cabs

• Protective effect of rear-seat travel seen in other vehicles not found in these vehicles.

• Evidence not clear enough to recommend front-seat travel in these vehicles.


Key messages:

• Transport children in other vehicle if possible.

• Never use side-facing jump seats.

• Turn off air bag if using front seat for child

• Seat choices:

Rear-facing as long as possible

Narrow footprint – overhang issues




Key messages:• ALWAYS attach tether for forward-facing seat – become familiar with

unusual tethering mechanisms.


Key messages:

Consider outreach to Dads:

• More likely to transport children in pickup trucks

• More likely to transport children unrestrained or sub-optimally restrained (35% v 26%), or in the front seat (24% v. 14%).

‘Child passenger safety practices and injury risk in crashes with father versus mother drivers’, Kallan et al., Injury Prevention, 2012, 20, 272-75


Conference Report: Kidz in Motion


“Quantifying CRS Compatibility in the Vehicle Seat Environment”Presented by Julie Bing, OH State Univ.; research collaboration with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

Data gathered on 61 vehicles & 59 safety seats, encompassing all main categories of each. Collected 94 data points per vehicle & 40 per safety seat. 3600 measurements.

Goal: benchmark for industries. Seek any basis for incorrect use due to design factors. Focus not on comparing individual seats/cars for ease-of-use. BUT gives areas for parents to explore when choosing seats.


6 categories of findings: A. Width along bight of vehicle seat (not including side bolsters)

Very similar % fit: 63.3% RF, 62.2% FF

Rear-facing-only seats: 90%+ fit vs. less than 40% of 3-in-1 seats

Question to be answered with crash testing: although narrow bases fit better in seat pans of cars, would wider bases provide better protection?




B. Vehicle seat support for safety seat base:

80% recommended by most manufacturers; 100% by some.

Close to 99% of vehicle seats provided 80% support for safety seat bottoms but only 71% offered 100% support.

(Other research by Klinich indicates no need to have full support; only 1 seat fell off & it passed FMVSS 213.)


C. Fit of RF & FF seats when front passenger seat is fully back, partway back, fully forward.

RF seats: 15.3% for fully back; 73.2%, partway; 95.8% forward.

FF: accounting for child leg room: back: 78.2%; partway,98%; forward, 100%.




D. Correct angle rear facing:• Startling: for 7 seats, could not achieve correct angle

because needed vehicle seat pan flatter, i.e. less than the 7.1-degree angle which was least slanted angle of all vehicle seats.

• Only 58.2% could be angled properly:

37.6%: too upright; 4.2% too flat with consequences of potential airway closure & crash pressure on head and shoulders respectively.


E. Belt buckle resting on plastic edge of RF belt path:

Appears to have been addressed. 90.5% successfully fitted, especially good for convertible safety seats. Only small trucks had less than 80% successful fits.




F. Head restraint interference with correct fit of FF safety seats: • Frustrating issue as new standard for head restraints

meant to protect teens and adults.• Removable head restraints MAY lead to non-replacement when

needed.• With head restraints in place: 66.4% fit.

Future research: plans include sled testing with pool noodles in use & repeat of percentage of seat support needed for safety seat crash performance.


“Why Isn’t There a Global Car Seat?” David Amirault, Dorel Juvenile Group

Parents often express frustration at the variability of safety seats; however, consumers equally often state preferences for particular features. How do we explain the variability of choices made in standards and features between countries? Whose choices are “safer”?

Dorel is an international company with products suited to the differing influences in various countries. Amirault named 3 major drivers of choices made: regulatory standards; consumer preferences; social influences.




Comparing regulatory focus: ECE R44 is standard for Europe, China, Latin America, Japan: Higher peak force loads BUT longer period before reached.

FMVSS 213: U S: Reach peak force loads much faster.

Both tests are useful. One is not better than the other.

Regulatory – Crash Pulse

31

FMVSS213 and R44 Frontal impact Pulse Corridor

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Time (ms)

Dec

eler

atio

n (

g)

FMVSS213 L

FMVSS 213 U

R44 L

R44 U

US pulse onset is stronger

R44 high peak g force loads



Comparing regulatory focus (con’t):

Testing conditions vary: FMVSS 213: 4 test modesa. Lap belt only; b. Lower connectors only; c. Full LATCH system; d. Lap belt with top tether vs.

R44: 2 test modes

e. Lap-shoulder belt: means can put lap section around bottom of seat with shoulder portion through guides at top of seat. (Very early GM forward-facing Love Seat in U.S. originally used lap belt around bottom pedestal of seat & top tether.)

ORb. ISOFIX (similar to U.S. LATCH system but rigid)

Regulatory – Test Modes

33

1) Lap Only

2) LATCH Only

3) LATCH/Tether

4) Lap/Tether

ISOFIX

3 point auto belt

- or -

- and -

- and -

- and -

R44

FMVSS 213



• New regulation: 7/2013 under United Nations compact. • Does not replace R44 but provides for more protection.• i-Size 129: goal is to keep babies rear facing longer (15 months):

a. Switch from child weight to child heightb. Covers “groups 0 & 1” in European labeling to include

babies up to 15 monthsc. Meant to increase use of ISOFIX; includes top tether &

support leg to maintain stability. d. Includes side-impact testing; tested with ISOFIX onlye. Expected to be main standard used in 5 years


Regulatory – New I-size

35

i-Size Seating Position in car

Height now determines fit, not weight




Dummies in Use:• U.S.: Family of Hybrid dummies

• Europe: P Series.

• Q Series: new for both if U.S. proposal goes through. Meant to be used in side-impact testing, too.

• Australia: just added ISOFIX (lower anchors); has required tethers rear facing, e.g. for decades.


Consumer Preferences/Influencesa. Vehicle top choices: compare U.S. & Europe

U S: Ford F-series & Chevy Silverado (large pickups); Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Dodge RAM, Honda Civic (not until #6=smaller car)

Europe: VW Golf, Ford Fiesta, Renault Clio, VW Polo, Opel/Vauxhall Corsa, Peugeot 208—much smaller vehicles




Consumer Preferences/Influencesb. Characteristics of typical seats:

Rear-facing-only:

• U.S.: most tested for more than 22 lbs; have separate base to leave in car; fit with specific strollers.

• Europe: harness weight to 22 lbs.; fewer with separate bases; universal stroller adaptor.

Seats that are forward facing:

• U.S.: harness generally tested beyond 40 lbs.; most are convertible; much larger seats.

• Europe: “Group 1”: harness tested to 40 lbs.


Consumer Preferences/Influences(c) Social Influences

Underlying reasons:• Cost of gas: Europe: $8.32/gal vs. $3.52/gal.• Number of children per woman:

Europe: 1.6 vs U.S. 1.9 (almost 2)• Cars per 1000 adults: Europe: 600; U.S.: 800.• Europe: more of a walking culture vs. U.S. car-driven except

for a few major cities with highly developed public transit.




Consumer Preferences/Influences(c) Social Influences (con’t): Shopping styles:

U.S.: major influence of big box stores; focus on meeting price point under $100

Europe: boutique shopping; 200 Euros ($258) not uncommon

Underlying changes: Europe, especially Netherlands, Germany, France, even UK, have seen increase in purchasing power since 2000 compared with U.S. where purchasing power jumped in 1990’s.


What’s Converging?

• U.S.: More seats with ISOFIX (i.e. rigid lower anchors); several models with stability or load legs. (Load leg may not be used during regulatory testing so must pass without it and must “disappear” during testing.)

• Europe: More interest in separate basesSharing across boundariesSide-impact technologies as standards include this requirementNo-rethread harness systemsBelt lock-offs: Europe doesn’t have manually lockable shoulder-lap belts as required in U.S. vehicles.


42

Global Synergies – Components/Features

Stay-in-Car Bases ISOFIX &Support Leg

43

Global Synergies – Components/Features

SIP Technologies

No-RethreadHarness

Belt Lock Offs

CEUs


• 1 CEU awarded by Safe Kids

• To claim:

www.carseat.org

Click on Calendars, Professional and Technician Training, California Technical Teleconference, Request for CEU

Download form, complete & email to [email protected]

Verification Code: Pickup14

the child passenger safety technician technical webinar will begin at 10:00 am safetybeltsafe u.s.a....

Documents