Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:
The Child Passenger Safety Technician Technical Webinar will begin at 10:00 am SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Please remember to mute your phone – BUT DO NOT PUT US ON HOLD!!! Thank you!
California Department of Public Health Vehicle Occupant Safety Program with the support of California Office of Traffic Safety Child Passenger Safety Technician Technical Webinar September 25, 2014 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Stephanie M. Tombrello, LCSW, CPSTI Kate 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 + SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A.
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 + SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Upcoming Events: San Diego
Research Review: Vehicles: Good Choices for Teens SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Status Report, Vol. 49, No. 5 Special Issue: Vehicles for Teens, July 16, 2014 Risks to Teens: Comparison of fatality rates for year olds with 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.
Research Review: Vehicles: Good Choices for Teens SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.
Research Review: Vehicles: Good Choices for Teens Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you. 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.
Research Review: Vehicles: Good Choices for Teens SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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 SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. “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 million 4-wheel ATVs in U.S. [Note: often have replaced horses in rural areas.] Subgroup of year olds whose parents answered HealthStyles online survey earlier in Weighted survey included 833 teens. + Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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).
Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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 % by region and on urban/rural axis: 22% vs 44% Helmet use: 45% Always, 10% Seldom, 25% Never + Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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
Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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 Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Research Review: ATV Riders & Helmet Use SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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 Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you. 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 ,907 vehicles, 189,962 children of which pickups: 7192 vehicles, children)
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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”
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks 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 Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks 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 Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Key messages: ALWAYS attach tether for forward-facing seat – become familiar with unusual tethering mechanisms.
Child Passengers & Pickup Trucks 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, Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. “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 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion 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? Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.)
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion 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%. Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion 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. Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion “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. Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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 US pulse onset is stronger R44 high peak g force loads
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Comparing regulatory focus (con’t): Testing conditions vary: FMVSS 213: 4 test modes a.Lap belt only; b. Lower connectors only; c.Full LATCH system; d.Lap belt with top tethervs. R44: 2 test modes a.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.) OR b. 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 - R44 FMVSS 213
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion Comparing regulatory focus (con’t): 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 height b.Covers “groups 0 & 1” in European labeling to include babies up to 15 months c.Meant to increase use of ISOFIX; includes top tether & support leg to maintain stability. d. Includes side-impact testing; tested with ISOFIX only e.Expected to be main standard used in 5 years Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Regulatory – New I-size 35 i-Size Seating Position in car Height now determines fit, not weight
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Comparing regulatory focus (con’t): 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion Consumer Preferences/Influences a.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 Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. Consumer Preferences/Influences b. 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion 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. Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 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.
Conference Report: Kidz in Motion 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 bases Sharing across boundaries Side-impact technologies as standards include this requirement No-rethread harness systems Belt lock-offs: Europe doesn’t have manually lockable shoulder- lap belts as required in U.S. vehicles. Please mute your phone – but don’t put the line on hold – thank you.
42 Global Synergies – Components/Features Stay-in-Car BasesISOFIX & Support Leg
43 Global Synergies – Components/Features SIP Technologies No-Rethread Harness Belt Lock Offs
CEUs SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. 1 CEU awarded by Safe Kids To claim: Click on Calendars, Professional and Technician Training, California Technical Teleconference, Request for CEU Download form, complete & to Verification Code: Pickup14