CEDRE Project - Expertise en Accidentologie

CEDRE Project - Expertise en Accidentologie
CEDRE Project
Study and Verification of Child Restraint Systems
Final Report
6 May 2010
Research Agreement 2008-02
PREFECTURE DE L’EURE
GENDARMERIE
NATIONALE
POLICE
NATIONALE
Author: Christophe Ledon, 2 rue du Fer à Cheval, 27190 ORVAUX - FRANCE
Tel.: +33 (0)2 32 37 44 65 – Fax: +33 (0)811 38 45 65 – E-mail: [email protected]
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
CONTENTS
SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................3
GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................4
OUR VOCABULARY ...........................................................................................................4
I - PRESENTATION OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................5
A- CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................................................... 6
B- REGULATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
C- APPROVAL OF CAR SEATS...................................................................................................................................... 6
D- LITERATURE REVIEW AND PREVIOUS STUDIES .................................................................................................. 8
E- OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................................................................. 8
F- PARTNERSHIPS ......................................................................................................................................................... 8
G- METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................ 9
II – SAMPLE ..................................................................................................................... 14
III – RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 17
A- THE DRIVER ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
B- THE CHILD ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
C- THE RESTRAINTS ................................................................................................................................................... 21
D- USE AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM .................................................................................... 23
IV – BABY SEATS............................................................................................................. 32
A- POSITION AND DIRECTION OF CHILDREN IN THE CAR ..................................................................................... 33
B- COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AIRBAG ...................................................................................................................... 33
C- USE AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM .................................................................................... 34
V – FORWARD-FACING CHILD SEATS .............................................................................. 38
VI – BOOSTER SEATS WITH OR WITHOUT BACKRESTS ................................................... 40
VII – THE ISOFIX SYSTEM ................................................................................................ 42
VIII – GEOMETRIC COMPATIBILITY .................................................................................. 45
A- POSITION OF THE SEATBELT TENSIONER.......................................................................................................... 46
B- REAR HEADREST .................................................................................................................................................... 47
C- WIDTH OF THE REAR SEATS................................................................................................................................. 47
IX – OVERVIEW OF PRODUCTS AVAILABLE ..................................................................... 48
A- CAR DEALERSHIPS ................................................................................................................................................. 49
B- CHILDCARE SHOPS ................................................................................................................................................ 49
C- SUPERMARKETS ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
D- CAR CENTRES ......................................................................................................................................................... 50
E- APPROVAL ............................................................................................................................................................... 50
F- SEAT MAKES AND MODELS ................................................................................................................................... 50
G- GROUPS AND CHILD WEIGHT ............................................................................................................................... 52
H- ISOFIX AND TRANSPONDERS ............................................................................................................................... 53
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 54
RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................... 55
A- FOR DRIVERS AND PARENTS ............................................................................................................................... 55
B- FOR CAR MANUFACTURERS, PARTS SUPPLIERS AND CAR SEAT MANUFACTURERS ................................ 55
C- FOR SALES OUTLETS............................................................................................................................................. 56
D- FOR ROAD SAFETY ORGANISATIONS ................................................................................................................. 56
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 58
Page 2
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
SUMMARY
The CEDRE project (Contrôle et Etude des Dispositifs de Retenue Enfant – Study and Verification of Child
Restraint Systems) aimed to observe the way children were seated in cars and measure the degree of
misuse of CRSs (Child Restraint Systems). The study interviewed parents leaving the Evreux maternity unit
and examined road traffic in the Eure département or district (Haute-Normandie, France).
It observed 431 children aged under 13 in 277 vehicles. In 15% of cases, the use of the restraint was
inappropriate, i.e. the child was not using a restraint suited to her height and/or her weight.
Combining this with incorrect restraint installations, the overall level of misuse was 66%. This figure
reached 77% for rear-facing baby seats, where the main errors were routing the seatbelt wrongly
around the CRS and too much play in the seatbelt or harness. With booster seats, where 76% of
incorrect use was observed, we also found problems of loose seatbelts and the fact that they were
often positioned over one or even both armrests.
The incorrect installation arises most often from a lack of knowledge or practice with the installation of
the CRS, which can be complex, especially for baby seats. Reading the instructions, a preliminary test
installation of the CRS and advice in sales outlets all have a beneficial impact on the success of the
installation. Note however that 34% of drivers were aware that the system designed to protect their child
was poorly installed!
91% of baby seats were installed with their back to the road, which is satisfactory. Unfortunately, 6
children out of 29 in the front passenger seat were found to have active airbags! Overall, drivers were
well aware of the regulations on car seats when we interviewed them in 2008-2009. On the other hand,
the ISOFIX system was partially or totally unknown to the public: only 1% of the CRSs observed were
installed in ISOFIX mode, although the system is considered to be the safest and is intended precisely to
limit incorrect installations!
Page 3
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
GLOSSARY
CASPER*
Child Advanced Safety Project for European Roads
CEDRE
Study and Verification of Child Restraint Systems
CEESAR
Centre Européen d’Etudes de Sécurité et d’Analyse des Risques (European Centre for
Safety Studies and Risk Analysis)
CHI Eure Seine Eure Seine district hospital (Evreux and Vernon hospitals – 27-Eure)
CHILD*
CHild Injury Led Design
CREST*
Child Restraint System Standard
CRS
Child Restraint System
DRE
Dispositif de Retenue Enfant (Child Restraint System)
EDSR
Escadron Départemental de Sécurité Routière (Gendarmerie district road safety
brigade)
INRETS
Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (National Institute for
Transport and Safety Research)
LAB
Laboratoire d’Accidentologie et de Biomécanique PSA PEUGEOT CITROËN / RENAULT
(PSA Peugeot Citroën/Renault Accident and Biomechanics Laboratory)
WHO
World Health Organization
ONISR
Observatoire National Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière (National Interministerial
Road Safety Observatory)
PDASR
Plan Départemental d’Actions de Sécurité Routière (Prefecture Road Safety Action
Plan)
* European research projects co-funded by the European Commission
OUR VOCABULARY
Rear-facing
baby seat
Forward-facing
child seat
Booster seat with
harness
Page 4
Booster seat with
backrest
Booster cushion
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
I - PRESENTATION OF THE
STUDY
Page 5
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
A- CONTEXT
The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that about 3000 people are killed around the world
every day in car accidents. This includes the deaths of about 500 children every day worldwide. The
World report on road traffic injury prevention[1] predicts that these deaths will increase globally by 60%
by 2020. But countries are unequal in their road safety statistics: although the report forecasts a 20%
drop in deaths for western countries, low- and middle-income countries could see deaths rise by 80%!
In Europe, 517 children aged under 10 were killed on the roads in 2007 [2]. In France, 57 children aged
under 10 were killed in car accidents the same year.
Although children represent barely 3% of deaths in France [3], it seems inconceivable not to do
everything possible to ensure their safety. Especially as they do not choose to be transported in cars,
and remain under the responsibility of their parents. By improving our understanding of parents'
behaviour, it is also possible to improve the safety of their children.
B- REGULATIONS
It was not until 1975 that children were considered as a different kind of car passenger from adults in
France. Several texts and standards have been drafted to cover the regulation and sale of Child
Restraint Systems (CRS) in France and their use on the roads (see appendices 1 to 4).
Article R412 of the French road traffic code specifies the provisions to observe when transporting
children (appendix 3):

The driver of the vehicle must ensure that all passengers under the age of 18 wear a seatbelt or
use a child restraint system.
(Decree no. 2005-277 of 25 March 2005 on seatbelts, amending the road traffic code and published in
the official journal on 26 March 2006)



Each seat equipped with a seatbelt may only be occupied by one person.
If a seat is not equipped with a seatbelt, it may not be used for a child under the age of three.
Similarly, the driver must ensure that all children aged under ten are restrained by an approved
child restraint system suited to their size and weight.
 If a baby is carried in the front seat, back to the road, in a seat specifically designed for the
purpose, the front safety cushion (airbag) must be deactivated.
(Decree no. 2006-1496 of 29 November 2006 on the compulsory wearing of seatbelts and the use of
child restraint systems, amending the road traffic code and published in the official journal on 1
December 2006).
The 2006 decree completes the regulations and transposes a European directive. Taking force on 1
January 2008, this new measure requires couples travelling with more than three children to have a
vehicle with more than five seats (which was not previously required in France).
C- APPROVAL OF CAR SEATS
In Europe, child restraint systems are approved according to regulation no. 44 appended to the
Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958. Seats may be labelled ECE R44/01, ECE R44/02, ECE R44/03 or
ECE R44/04 depending on which amendment they satisfy. Amendment 4 was introduced on 23 June
2005, and all new seats sold since the end of June 2006 are approved under this amendment. Seats
approved under amendment 3 (ECE R44/03) could still be sold until 23 June 2009.
The approval process covers dynamic and static tests, and car seats are approved according to a
range of child weights:
Page 6
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
GROUP 0:
up to 9 kg (rear-facing)
GROUP 0+:
up to 13 kg (rear-facing)
GROUP 1:
9 to 18 kg (forward-facing)
GROUP 2:
15 to 25 kg (forward-facing)
GROUP 3:
22 to 36 kg (forward-facing)
The tests are carried out with two dummies (at the lower and upper weight limits) installed in the restraint
system:



Frontal impact on 100% of the front of the car at 50 km/h against a wall, with the seat installed
facing forward or backwards depending on the group being tested.
Rear impact: a barrier strikes the rear of the vehicle at between 30 and 32 km/h.
Overturning (rotation through 360° at a speed of 2-5 °/s)
During these tests, maximum movement distances and maximum decelerations must be respected.
Fire resistance, toxicity and endurance tests are also carried out on the seat components. For example,
the buckle is opened and closed 5000 times and must still operate correctly after the dynamic tests
described above.
The ECE R44/04 standard is described in appendix 4.
If the system passes all the tests, it is approved and carries a label as shown here:
Make/model of the seat
Universal: suitable for all
vehicles
Not universal: for a
specified list of vehicles
only
Complies with European
regulation 44/03
Y = seat with harness
Child's weight range for using
the seat
European approval issued
by:
1 - Germany
2 - France
3 - Italy ...
Amendment no. (03) + approval
serial number
Manufacturer
Figure 1: Example of an approval label
Note that as of 2008 there is no lateral impact test in the approval of a car seat. Some manufacturers go
beyond the required standards and carry out fuller, stricter tests to guarantee greater safety for their
products (this is true of the seats used in Euroncap tests – www.euroncap.com).
Page 7
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
D- LITERATURE REVIEW AND PREVIOUS STUDIES
In France, child safety has so far received little study. In 1992, a study by INRETS (National Institute for
Transport and Safety Research) revealed that children were only restrained about 75% of the time on
long journeys in France [4]. This study aimed to measure the degree of child restraint use just after the
introduction of the new law on child safety in cars in France.
Much later, in 2003, data collected as part of the European CHILD project [5] showed that 73% of Child
Restraint Systems (CRS) in France were being used incorrectly. Most of this misuse involved too much
play in seatbelts or harnesses or seatbelts or harnesses poorly positioned around the child's body.
In 2008, the Prévention Routière association conducted surveys near a circus in Paris [6]. The study
showed that 80% of children aged under 10 were incorrectly attached or not attached at all. The
average age of the children was about 6 and a half.
In the United States, a study conducted during autumn 2002 surveyed 5527 children weighing less than
36 kg. 62.3% of these children were attached, and 72.6% were using the child restraint system incorrectly
[7]. The main misuses were too much play in the harness attaching the child and in the seatbelt
attaching the car seat. There was a correlation between drivers wearing seatbelts and children being
properly restrained, as 91.7% of children were attached in vehicles where the driver was wearing a
seatbelt compared with only 62.3% when the driver was not wearing a seatbelt.
In 2008, an American demographic analysis also showed differences depending on sex and ethnic
origin [8].
The situation in developing countries is even more alarming. A March 2009 study in Montevideo
(Uruguay) conducted by EDU-CAR [9] showed that only 11.7% of children were installed in a child
restraint. The rate of misuse amounted to 92.4%!
E- OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT
Most studies of child protection are observational, and indicate the degree of misuse observed in a
certain population in a particular location. However, the reasons for these incorrect installations are
studied little if at all.
The goal of the CEDRE project (Study and Verification of Child Restraint Systems) is not only to carry out
observations at a particular place but also to understand the reasons for possible misuse. The purpose of
the project is to draft recommendations to improve the use of child restraint and safety systems in
vehicles.
The project planned to observe 300 to 400 children transported in cars in a variety of situations:
 Leaving the maternity unit
 Randomly on motorway journeys (holidays, weekends and during the week)
 On local journeys (to or from school, shopping etc.)
 During out-of-school activities (cultural or sporting)
F- PARTNERSHIPS
Our local involvement in accident prevention and road safety education enabled us to present the
project to the local authorities in the district. This is how the Prefecture of Eure agreed to include the
project in the PDASR (Prefecture Road Safety Action Plan).
The Gendarmerie Nationale and the national police also welcomed the project and helped in its
implementation by stopping road users targeted by the study.
Page 8
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Photos 1 & 2: French gendarmes and police intercepting road users
The Eure-Seine hospital (Vernon and Evreux hospitals) contributed to the project by accepting our
presence at their Evreux site, where we were able to survey the parents of newborn babies.
We also benefited from the technical analysis and accident expertise of CEESAR (European Centre for
Safety Studies and Risk Analysis).
The LAB (French Accident and Biomechanics Laboratory) assisted the project by providing its expertise
in child safety and giving the project a European dimension, as the questionnaire will be used in the
European CASPER project.
Finally, the CEDRE project would not have been possible without the Fondation MAIF, which supports
road safety research projects. The foundation had already been involved in child protection by
contributing to a study on rear-facing restraints [10]. It had also supported the CREST Child Restraint
System Standard project [11].
As an independent accident expert, we initiated the
project and were responsible for its coordination and
follow-up. We received specific training in child restraint
systems at the LAB before carrying out the data collection.
We also took care of designing and creating the database
and entering the data.
Photo 3: Interview with a driver
The originality of the project lies in the wide variety of its partners. The link between the local authorities,
the medical community, research organisations and the general public has been a rewarding source of
improvements in the operation of the project.
G- METHODOLOGY
1- The questionnaire
Containing over 80 items, the questionnaire covers both technical data about car seat installation and
social data about the drivers. The form's organisation is designed to ensure the data are collected as
quickly as possible, respecting a consistent sequence in how the questions are posed.
The questionnaire is also suited to all types of installation, all locations and all conditions where the data
are collected (see the full questionnaire in appendix 5).
Page 9
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
The first section covers the child's position in the vehicle, her morphology, the type of restraint in which
she is installed, the direction it faces etc. The next section deals with ISOFIX and airbags.
After these descriptive sections, we observe the installation and identify any
defects: incorrect seatbelt routing, play in the seatbelt attaching the CRS,
play in the harness, under the arms, over the back, buckle not closed etc.
We then look for the reasons for a correct or incorrect installation. The
questions are put to the person who installed the restraint. They cover the
seat installation instructions, where it was bought, how it was chosen etc.
All these details are completed for each child. This means there may be
several questionnaires for the same vehicle, depending on how many
children are on board.
Photo 4: Survey in progress
Next, information is collected about the vehicle and the driver. This includes the type of journey and the
driver's knowledge of the regulations and of the restraint system. Only one vehicle form is completed,
even if there are several children on board.
Given parents' expectations about the validation of their car seat installations, especially at the
maternity unit, we created a section on the acceptability of the study. This section had not initially been
planned. It also allowed us to note refusal to take part in the study and the nature of the observations
(complete or visual only).
Finally, the questionnaire ends with a quick analysis of the probable reasons for an incorrect installation.
This information can be filled in without the parents being present to avoid taking up too much of their
time.
Due to the quantity of information recorded, an
interview lasted between 5 and 7 minutes with
one child in the car, the researcher being
experienced and trained specifically for the
survey.
With several children on board, the data
collection time could reach 10 minutes. If a seat
was
improperly
installed,
the
researcher
corrected it in the presence of the parents. This
was appreciated, as there were many questions
and comments about the problem of installing
car seats. The survey time could thus easily
exceed 10 minutes in some cases!
Image: MAIF Multimédia
Image: MAIF Multimédia
Photo 5: Checking the installation
Following the survey, road safety leaflets were given
to the drivers ("Car seats: child safety in the car" Appendix 6) and the children ("Gastounet, very
special agent" - Appendix 7).
Photo 6: Handing out and explaining the leaflet
Page 10
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
2- Survey locations
The study took place in France, in the Eure district, about 100 km west of Paris. Unable
to achieve a representative survey of the whole country, we decided to concentrate
initially on a single département (district). We observed children at 22 sites.
At the maternity unit, data were collected almost every day between 21 July 2008
and 31 August 2008. Further data were collected on the Eure district road network at
irregular intervals between 1 August 2008 and 4 June 2009.
Figure 2: Locations of the 22 data collection sites
3- Maternity unit data collection
The hospital in Evreux, in the Prefecture of Eure, has a maternity unit with 30 beds and delivers about
2000 babies a year. It is part of the CHI Eure-Seine district hospital, which includes the hospital sites in
Evreux and Vernon. It is the town's only maternity unit, and the only one within a radius of 30 km. The
nearest alternative maternity units are located in Bernay (27), Vernon (28), Rouen (76) and Mantes-laJolie (78).
A car seat with a child restraint is on display near the maternity rooms. This
introduces parents to the installation of a rear-facing baby seat.
Photo 7: Demonstration seat in the maternity unit
Page 11
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
There are also posters restating the importance of attaching children in cars. They are displayed:
 in the maternity unit's entrance hall
 in the gynaecology waiting room
 in the corridor serving the mothers' rooms
Thanks to a partnership with an
insurance company, car seats can also
be lent, although ultimately parents
make very little use of this facility.
Mothers are given a free case during
pregnancy (at six months), containing
samples (nappies, baby wipes etc.) and
advertising materials (subscriptions to
parenting
books
and
magazines,
treatments for mothers etc.).
Photo 8: Information posters near the bedrooms
When they leave the maternity unit, mothers receive another case.
Originally intended to provide advice for mothers, these cases were quickly turned into promotional
items. In the end, only the health record book supplied by the district council allows health advice to be
passed on (sudden infant death syndrome, bronchiolitis, risks in the home etc.).
Before our data collection, information for patients was displayed in the maternity reception (Appendix
8). This was not much read, and probably did not significantly change users' behaviour given the results
of the study.
Mothers were allowed to leave with their babies from 1.30 pm, but some parents left earlier at their own
initiative. Data collection at the Evreux maternity unit took place between 21 July and 31 August 2008.
We took up our positions discreetly outside
the building from 1 pm (no fluorescent
vests), closely watching the comings and
goings of the fathers loading luggage into
the cars in the maternity car park.
As soon as the baby was installed, we
introduced ourselves with a badge
bearing the hospital logo and the road
safety logo ("tous responsables" – all
responsible),
briefly
explaining
the
principles of the study.
The adults were not necessarily in the
vehicle yet and the engine might still not
have been turned on. However, we did
wait until the child was installed.
Photo 9: Data collection site at the maternity unit
We received a variety of responses:
Some hospital users were reluctant because the mothers were eager to get home (because they were
tired or had to feed their babies). The "chauffeur", friend or partner, often had much to do in the
afternoon or had to return to work.
The relative heat of summer 2008 (30-35°C) also played a part, as the parents were worried that their
newborn babies would suffer in the heat of the car. However, carrying out the survey in winter would
Page 12
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
also have been problematic due to the cold! Note that these elements are important, as the clothing
worn by the baby influences the adjustment of the harness and affects whether covers or blankets are
present.
4- Data collection on the road and motorway network
Image: MAIF Multimédia
The surveys were conducted mostly in urban areas
and on the district's main roads and motorways. 22
sites were selected based on their potential for high
traffic of vehicles carrying children. The sites were
chosen in collaboration with law enforcement officers
to secure the space and allow intercepted vehicles
to park.
Photo 10: Interception by gendarmes
The gendarmes and police officers were
confronted with a difficulty that was familiar to
them from their daily practice surveying the
roads: children are hard to spot in passing
cars! They are often in the back seats, hidden
by the backrests of the vehicle's front seats.
The interception arrangements thus often
required an officer to be placed further up
the road, indicating to his colleague when
there was a child in a vehicle.
Image: MAIF Multimédia
Photo 11: Interception by the police
It was also important for vehicles to be travelling slowly to enable them to be intercepted, so sites close
to places where traffic slows were given preference (car parks, traffic lights, stop signs, roundabouts
etc.).
Although they were being stopped by law enforcement officers, road users appreciated the
gendarmes' and police officers' accident prevention work. This cooperation made the data collection
work easier, and the study was widely accepted by road users. The same would not have been true if a
repressive aspect had been combined with the accident prevention approach.
Page 13
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
II – SAMPLE
Page 14
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
In all, the CEDRE project enabled us to observe 431 children on board 277 vehicles, mostly cars.
The majority of the data were collected at
Parking
the maternity unit (45% of cases) to
Supermarché
Proximité des
Maternité
provide information on the transport of
5%
écoles
45%
newborn babies. The other sites were
20%
chosen for their potential to provide cars
with children on board.
Centre ville
3%
Traversée
d'agglomération Grand axe routier
hors autoroute
13%
3%
As participation in the study was voluntary,
the surveys took place under good
weather conditions: no data were
collected at night, in the rain or in the
cold!
Autoroute
11%
Figure 3: Survey locations (out of 277 vehicles observed)
It is important to make this clear, as incorrect installations of child seats may be influenced by exterior
weather conditions, particularly as regards the clothing worn by children in cars and the relative
patience of their parents!
The survey dates and times were decided in accordance with the researcher's availability and that of
the law enforcement
officers. The imperatives
76
80
of the latter's duties
70
70
naturally took priority.
The high proportion of
60
the data collected in
51
50
the afternoon is due to
40
the
122
interviews
37
40
carried out at the
30
maternity
unit,
as
mothers
were
only
20
allowed to leave with
their babies from 1.30
10
3
pm.
0
0
Lundi
Mardi
Mercredi
Jeudi
Vendredi
Figure 4: Survey days (out of 277 vehicles)
98
100
90
80
70
57
60
51
50
40
30
30
20
21
20
10
0
08h - 09h
09h - 10h
10h - 12h
12h - 14h
14h - 16h
Figure 5: Survey times (out of 277 vehicles)
Page 15
16h - 18h
Samedi
Dimanche
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Refus (blocage)
1%
Parents pressés
16%
Observation
visuelle
seulement
(interview déjà en
cours)
2%
Demandeur pour
valider leur
installation
21%
Normale
60%
Although the survey was voluntary for
road users, they readily agreed to answer
our
questions.
Safety
and
better
protection for their children were probably
the main reason. It should be noted for
data collection on the road network that
drivers prefer answering questions about
car seats to submitting to a roadside
check by the police or gendarmes.
Figure 6: Acceptability of the study
Acceptance of the study on the road network was thus often classed as "normal" (65% of vehicles
surveyed), as long as there were no specific questions from the parents.
The "parents in a hurry" classification does not
necessarily mean that no data were
collected. It reflects the driver's attitude at the
beginning of the interview. Frequently,
pointing out an incorrect installation was
enough to engage a friendly discussion about
the child's safety and collect just as complete
a survey as if the acceptability had been
"normal" at the beginning. Visual observations
alone apply only to data collected at the
maternity unit.
Overall, the data collection took place in a
friendly atmosphere and the parents
welcomed our checks of their children's installations.
Image: MAIF Multimédia
Photo 12: Friendly atmosphere during the survey
2,5
Average child occupancy per vehicle =
1.6
2,2
2,0
2,0
1,7
1,6
1,5
1,6
1,3
1,1
1,0
0,5
0,0
Maternité
Autoroute
Grand axe
Traversée
Centre ville Proximité des
Parking
routier hors d'agglomération
écoles
Supermarché
autoroute
Figure 7: Child occupancy rate in vehicles (of 277 vehicles observed)
The average number of children per car was 1.6. We note that newborn babies leaving the maternity
unit were sometimes accompanied by another child in the car (brother or sister). Long journeys often
mean more children in the car: the child occupancy rate was more than 2 on motorways and major
roads. It was only in town centres that children were often alone: this is explained by the time of day,
which meant that journeys were often made with children below school age accompanied by a nonworking mother or a childminder (nanny).
Page 16
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
III – RESULTS
Page 17
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
A- THE DRIVER
Nounou Aucun
3%
2%
Autre
0,5%
In almost half of cases, the driver was the
father of the child. This proportion should
be put into perspective, however,
because nearly half the vehicles were
observed leaving the maternity unit, and it
is often the father who drives on this
occasion.
Oncle/tante
1%
Grand-parents
7%
Ami
5%
Papa
46%
Maman
36%
Figure 8: Relationship between the child and the driver
(of 414 children for whom the relationship is known)
partielle
25%
We tried to assess the drivers' level of
knowledge about the regulations. Without
expecting them to quote the different groups
and their associated weights (which are not
given in the French legal texts), we were
looking for drivers able to state the main traffic
rules, which are:
non
9%
oui
66%
Figure 9: Knowledge of regulations



Children under 10 are not allowed in the front seat except in a CRS installed with its back to the
road.
The airbag must be deactivated if a CRS is positioned in the front passenger seat.
A device suited to the child's size and weight must be used.
Of a total of 254 drivers for whom we have information, 66% knew the rules about child restraint systems
and children in cars more generally. 25% had a partial knowledge of the regulations and 9% did not
know them at all.
B- THE CHILD
The child was often installed in the rear side seats (76% of cases). Of 430 children, 176 were in the right
rear seat (41%) and 152 in the left rear seat (35%). The central rear seat was relatively little used (9% of
cases).
N=176
41%
N=4
N=40
9%
N=1
N=152
35%
N=7
N=50
12%
N=0
3%
Figure 10: Position of the child in the car (n=430)
Page 18
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
100%
90%
80%
70%
+ de 10 ans
60%
7 - 10 ans
3 - 6 ans
50%
12 - 36 mois
40%
1 - 12 mois
30%
<= 8 jours
20%
10%
0%
Avant
droit
(n=48)
Avant
centre
(n=1)
Arrière
gauche
(n=150)
Arrière
centre
(n=38)
Arrière
droit
(n=171)
3e
rangée
(n=12)
Figure 11: Age of the child and position in the car
The front right passenger seat is mainly occupied by newborn babies and children over 10, as required
by the French regulations. Where a third row of seats exists in the vehicle, we often found the older
children sitting here.
120
113
100
92
87
77
80
60
40
26
25
20
0
<= 8 jours
1 - 12 mois 12 - 36 mois
3 - 6 ans
7 - 10 ans
+ de 10 ans
Figure 12: Age of children (n=431 children)
In this study, we wanted to observe installations used by children of different ages, enabling us to check
the whole range of restraint systems. Many of the data concerned newborn babies leaving the
maternity unit, aged less than 8 days. This choice was deliberate, as few studies had previously
addressed this age group.
Page 19
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
160
150
140
Taille de l'enfant (cm)
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Age de l'enfant (année)
Figure 13: Age and height of children (n=272 children whose height is known)
The diagram above presents the children's height distribution according to age (272 children whose
height is known). The first child to reach a height of 1.4 metres was only 8. Over the age of 10, the
minimum height of the children in our sample was 1.3 metres
50
45
Poids de l'enfant (kg)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Age de l'enfant (année)
Figure 14: Age and weight of children (n=327 children whose weight is known)
From the age of 7, there is a wide disparity in children's weights. The weight limit of 36 kg (maximum
weight for which seats are approved under ECE R44) was reached by some children from the age of 8.
Page 20
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
C- THE RESTRAINTS
Our sample consists mainly of booster
seats (32%) and rear-facing baby seats
(25%). We would expect to find a high
proportion of booster seats, because this
system is theoretically used by children
aged 3 to 10. Baby seats are overrepresented, as theoretically they are only
used by very young children (under 6
months). This is due to the many surveys
carried out at the maternity unit (122
children out of 431).
Nacelle
5%
Pas de DRE
24%
Porte-bébé
25%
Intégré au siège
0%
Réhausse simple
15%
Siège coque à
harnais
14%
Réhausse avec
dossier
13%
Réhausse avec
dossier et harnais
4%
Figure 15: Range of devices observed
Nacelle
Réhausse avec harnais
Ceinture adulte seule
Porte-bébé
Réhausse avec dossier
Non retenu
Siège coque
Réhausse simple
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
AGE DE L'ENFANT
Figure 16: Range of devices observed by child age
Up to the age of 1 year, children are most often transported in rear-facing baby seats. Unfortunately,
some of these are simply placed on the seat of the car and not attached ("not restrained" in the
histogram in figure 16). From 1 to 3 years, forward-facing car seats are predominant, though some
children are already using booster seats.
From age 8, it is reassuring to see that although restraints are gradually phased out, the vast majority of
children wear seatbelts.
In 57% of cases, the restraint is bought new.
For second children, parents often reuse the
device they had for the first child (20% of
cases).
Finally, 23% of restraints are bought secondhand, loaned or given.
Prêt (n=28)
11%
Cadeau (n=14)
6%
Achat d'occasion
(n=16)
6%
Achat neuf ancien
(au 1er
enfant)(n=50)
20%
Figure 17: origins of the restraints observed
Page 21
Achat neuf récent
(n=146)
57%
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Achat neuf récent (n=146)
Achat d'occasion (n=16)
Cadeau (n=14)
Achat neuf ancien (au 1er enfant)(n=50)
Prêt (n=28)
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Nacelle
(n=16)
Porte-bébé
(n=86)
Réhausse
Réhausse
Siège coque Réhausse
(n=51)
avec harnais avec dossier simple (n=42)
(n=42)
(n=17)
Figure 18: Origin of restraints by type
Different acquisition methods predominate for different types of restraint. Only half of rear-facing baby
seats were bought new for the child observed, the same proportion as for booster cushions. The seat
bought for the first child is often reused when the second arrives.
Carry-cots are rarely bought new, and are often lent. This is probably due to their very short period of
use compared with other systems.
100%
Prêt/cadeau (n=39)
80%
Particulier (n=7)
Brocante (n=9)
60%
Internet (n=7)
Concession automobile (n=2)
40%
Centre-auto (n=3)
Grande surface (n=100)
20%
Magasin de Puériculture (n=84)
0%
Nacelle
(n=14)
Porte-bébé
(n=85)
Siège
coque
(n=50)
Réhausse Réhausse Réhausse
avec
avec
simple
harnais
dossier
(n=44)
(n=17)
(n=41)
Figure 19: Place of purchase of devices by type
The systems restricted to the youngest children (carry-cots, rear-facing baby seats and forward-facing
child seats) are often bought in childcare shops, especially forward-facing child seats. Booster seats are
more often bought in supermarkets.
Page 22
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Disponibilité (n=42)
Prix (n=23)
Confort/Modularité (n=52)
Design/esthétique (n=6)
Sécurité/qualité perçue (n=68)
Pack complet (n=24)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Magasin de
Grande
Concession
Puériculture surface (n=81) automobile
(n=78)
(n=2)
Internet (n=5)
Brocante
(n=8)
Particulier
(n=7)
Prêt/cadeau
(n=34)
Figure 20: Selection criteria and place of purchase of devices
The most important selection criterion for a car seat is safety (68 cases out of 215, 31%), especially when
the CRS is bought at a childcare shop. But comfort, versatility and the option of buying a full set (carrycot + baby seat + pushchair) are also important for parents. Although not everyone admits it, price is
obviously an important factor: seats are bought more cheaply at flea markets, car-boot sales etc.
Purchases at car dealerships are very unusual and thus have little significance in terms of selection
criteria.
D- USE AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM
Installateur du DRE
Papa
Maman
Papa+maman
Ami(e)
Famille
Autre
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Papa
Maman
Ami(e)
Grand-parent
Oncle/tante
Nounou
Conducteur du véhicule
Figure 21: Installer of the system and driver of the vehicle
When the father is the driver of the car, he installed the restraint system in 85% of cases. The installation is
also carried out by the mother, alone or together.
When the mother is the driver, the proportion is slightly lower (73%), meaning that the father more often
installs the child. On the other hand, it is the mother who installs the CRS when the child is being driven
by a friend or family member (grandparents, uncle or aunt).
Page 23
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Among those who installed the device, 53% (102 of
191) tried it out first before transporting the child for
the first time (this relates mainly to the installation of
baby seats).
Non
35%
Oui
53%
Oui, au premier
enfant
12%
Figure 22: Preliminary test of the device
We were also interested in the use of the instructions (the explanatory document supplied with the car
seat, and not only the sticker on the base of the seat). Based on the statements of the people who
installed the CRS, a little under half the parents
had read the instructions recently (104 of 220,
Pas de notice
47%), mostly the first time they installed the seat.
17%
16% more had read the instructions more than a
Oui, récemment
year ago. This was a CRS that had already been
47%
used for a first child and was reused when a
second arrived.
Non
20%
Finally, 20% of installers had not read the
instructions and 17% did not have any (CRS lent or
Oui, au premier
bought second-hand).
enfant
16%
Figure 23: Reading the seat instructions
Nearly 79% of those who read the instructions found them simple (104 people of 132 who had read the
instructions and given an opinion of their complexity).
We define "inappropriate use" as the use of a child restraint that is not suited to the child's body or the
failure to use a CRS when one is required. This classification thus includes:
 Carrying a child on the adult's lap (no restraint),
 Carrying a child in a basket (the basket is not a CRS),
 No seat when one is required, even if the child is wearing a seatbelt,
 The use of a seat that is inappropriate for the child's body (the child is too large or small for the
seat).
Of 431 children observed, we identified 64 inappropriate uses of a restraint, representing 15% of cases.
Utilisation
inappropriée
15%
Utilisation
appropriée
85%
Figure 24: Appropriate or inappropriate use of devices
Five children were found on the laps or in the arms of a parent, and two were lying in a basket – these
are not devices intended for carrying children in a car!
Page 24
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
57% of inappropriate uses involved the lack of
a restraint when the child's body size required
one. These are parents who leave the booster
seat behind too quickly when it is still required,
or parents who dare not give up the booster
seat because the child is not yet 10, even
though she is clearly too big for a booster
seat.
Réhausse
inadaptée
22%
Sur les genoux
8%
Dans un couffin
3%
Sans DRE,
inadapté
57%
Siège coque
inadapté
8%
Porte bébé
inadapté
2%
Figure 25: Inappropriate use of restraints
In 32% of inappropriate uses, a restraint system was used despite the
child being too large or too small for the seat in question. 22% of
these involved booster seats. We noticed that these are not only
children who are too small for a booster seat, but also children who
are too big, as parents respect the age limit of 10 and forget that
the restraint has to be "suited to the child's body size and weight"
(article R412 of the road traffic code).
Photo 13: Child too small for the CRS
Of the 431 children observed, with or without CRS, we noted 261 misuses of the seatbelt or harness. 61%
of installations are thus incorrect, potentially significantly reducing the children's level of protection in
the event of an accident. This alarming figure unfortunately confirms previous studies on the degree of
misuse of child restraints.
Utilisation correcte
39%
Mauvaise
utilisation
61%
Figure 26: Correct and incorrect device installation
Depending on the system used, incorrect installations may involve incorrect seatbelt routing, a harness
that is too loose, the seatbelt passing over an armrest etc. The number of potential misuses is large, and
most often depends on the user's imagination!
Page 25
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
The most frequent misuses relate to the seatbelt (63%). But misuses also involve the harness alone (16%)
or misuse of both the harness and the seatbelt (18% of cases).
Mauvaise
utilisation des
deux
18%
Inconnu
3%
Mauvaise
utilisation du
harnais seul
16%
Mauvaise
utilisation de la
ceinture seule
63%
Figure 27: Incorrect seat installation
90%
76%
77%
80%
70%
66%
63%
58%
60%
50%
40%
35%
33%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Nacelle (n=20)
Porte bébé
(n=100)
Siège coque
(n=60)
Réhausse
avec harnais
(n=18)
Réhausse
simple,
intégrée ou
avec dossier
(n=123)
Sans DRE
(n=105)
Ensemble
(n=426)
Figure 28: Proportion of incorrect restraint installation
Adding together inappropriate use and incorrect installation, carry-cots and car seats with harnesses
present the lowest level of misuse (35% and 33% of cases respectively). However, these results should be
seen in the perspective of the low sample sizes for these systems.
The highest level of incorrect installation involves rear-facing baby seats (77%). We saw several
dangerous situations, such as installations of these systems in the wrong direction, placing the child
facing the road instead of with her back to the road. Significant movement of the head in relation to
the thorax can cause serious injury to the child's neck, as the weight of the head at this age is very high
compared with the rest of the body. In addition, by installing rear-facing baby seats in a direction for
which they were not designed, the stress transmitted to the seat in the event of an impact could break
or eject the seat.
In addition to this misuse, the most frequent issue is a seat that is wrongly attached or not attached at
all, leading to a very high risk of ejection and projection within the car.
Page 26
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Although the installation principle seems simple, 76% of booster seats are incorrectly installed. This level is
extremely high, when all that is required is to use the adult seatbelt. Unfortunately, the belt is often
passed over at least one armrest, which does not allow the child to be restrained properly. At this age,
the child often straps herself in without the guidance of her parent.
Among the highest levels of misuse, forward-facing car seats account for a value of 66%. As with baby
seats, installation errors involving the seatbelt are added to those relating to the harness. We did not
encounter any of these seats installed in the wrong direction.
Where no restraint was used, we checked whether the child's body size justified this and whether the
adult seatbelt was used correctly. Of 105 children who were not using a CRS, the level of inappropriate
use or incorrect installation was 58%.
Overall, the level of incorrect installation was 66%, meaning that only 34% of children were installed
correctly in their cars!
80%
70%
60%
50%
Utilisation inappropriée
40%
Mauvaise installation
30%
20%
10%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Age de l'enfant
Figure 29: Level of inappropriate use and/or incorrect installation of restraints by the age of the child
Figure 29 shows the level of inappropriate use and incorrect installation by the age of the child. Up to
the age of 3, parents are capable of choosing the appropriate system. Peaks can be seen at ages 4, 7
and 9. These are the ages at which the transition to the next group of restraints takes place. The change
is often made too early, especially when moving from a child seat to a booster seat.
Looking at the rate of incorrect installation compared with the child's age, the level is very high for the
youngest children (71% for babies under one year) and decreases to the age of 3. It then peaks again
at 7, at which age 76% of children are wrongly installed. From the age of 8, incorrect installations
become less frequent.
The levels above the age of 10 have little significance because of the low sample levels at these ages,
and the data are thus not shown here.
Page 27
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
80%
70%
73%
71%
65%
60%
57%
60%
Courses
Loisir
59%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Départ de la
maternité
Ecole et
crèche
Famille et
autre
Vacances
Figure 30: Level of inappropriate use and incorrect installation by journey type
The degree of misuse (inappropriate and incorrect) varies depending on the type of journey. For longer,
less frequent journeys (leisure, holidays), the level is close to 60%, while for shorter, daily journeys (schools
and nurseries) it reaches 73%.
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Distance parcourue
20%
Distance restante à parcourir
10%
0%
0-4 km
5-9 km
10-19 km
20-49 km
50-99 km
+100 km
Figure 31: Degree of inappropriate use and incorrect installation by length of journey
When the remaining distance to travel is short, the degree of inappropriate use and incorrect
installation is high. It lies between 70 and 80% for distances of less than 10 km. Beyond this, the level
decreases, but rises again when the remaining distance to travel exceeds 100 km. It would therefore
seem that parents pay greater attention to how their child is installed when the journey is fairly long (up
to 100 km).
The trend is similar for distance travelled. The levels of inappropriate use and incorrect installation are
high when the distance travelled is very short or, conversely, very long (below 10 km or above 50 km).
These results may be influenced by the predominance of data collected at the maternity unit or near
schools, where the distances travelled are the shortest; these are also the types of journey where the
level of misuse is the highest (see previous figure).
On long journeys, it is likely that the child will become impatient and the parents less strict with regard to
safety. On short journeys, parents are not fully aware of the risks they are running.
Page 28
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
100%
65%
71%
Papa (n=144)
Maman
(n=101)
73%
68%
69%
Autres (dont
Papa+maman Ami( e) (n=6)
Famille
(n=11)
(grand-parent, les nounous)
(n=13)
oncle et
tante...) (n=19)
When the father installs the restraint
alone, he makes an installation
mistake in 65% of cases (93
inappropriate uses or incorrect
installations out of 144). This level is
higher still when the mother installs
the CRS, with a mistake made in
71% of cases.
Curiously, when they install the
restraint together they perform no
better, with a level of inappropriate
use and incorrect installation of 73%
(note that the sample size is low).
Figure 32: Level of inappropriate use and incorrect installation
according to the installer of the restraint
When the restraint is installed by a friend, the CRS is incorrectly installed or inappropriate every time (6
errors in 6 installations!), but the number of cases in the sample is not very representative.
Reading the instructions reduces the
degree of inappropriate use or incorrect
installation: the level is 52% when the
instructions have been read recently (54
out of 104) and over 70% when the
instructions have not been read or not
recently.
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
75%
70%
Oui, au premier
enfant (n=36)
Non (n=43)
76%
52%
20%
10%
0%
Oui, récemment
(n=104)
Pas de notice (n=37)
Lecture de la notice du DRE
Figure 33: Level of inappropriate use and incorrect installation
according to readership of the instructions
100%
86%
90%
80%
70%
61%
60%
50%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Oui, récemment (n=102)
Oui, au premier enfant
(n=23)
Non (n=66)
Essai d'installation préalable
Figure 34: Preliminary testing and level of inappropriate use
and incorrect installation of the restraint
Page 29
Testing the CRS installation first is
beneficial. Of those who had already
installed the CRS without the child, 46% (47
out of 102) had made an installation error
according to our observations. When the
installation
has
not
been
tested
beforehand, the level of incorrect
installation reaches 86%!
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
90%
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Conseil dans les points de vente
81%
80%
68%
70%
63%
57%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
When the customer is advised by sales staff
when purchasing the CRS, the level of
incorrect installation of the CRS is 57% (38 out
of 67). In the absence of advice, the degree
of inappropriate use and incorrect installation
of the CRS reaches 81%.
10%
0%
Non (n=21)
Non disponible (prêt,
cadeau) n=53
Pas nécessaire
(n=73)
Oui (n=67)
Figure 35: Level of inappropriate use and incorrect
installation compared with sales advice
The reasons for the inappropriate use and incorrect installation are many (figure 36) and can be
accumulated. They include:
Ignorance(n=178): the driver did not know the child was improperly installed or the restraint was not
appropriate. The need to tighten the seatbelt or the harness properly was unknown to parents, and this
is the main reason why children were poorly installed. Many parents also asked about the point when
they could change the car seat. This transition, and the choice of restraint, are always difficult for
parents.
Adult refusal(n=91): the driver knew the child was improperly installed but did not address the situation
or insist that the child be installed correctly. These are parents who have failed to impose their will and
given up, accepting despite themselves that the child is not attached or incorrectly installed. Parents
significantly underestimate the risk this involves.
Complexity(n=57): installing the restraint is too complex for the driver, even though she knows how to do
so properly. This is the main problem in the installation of rear-facing restraints. Despite reading the
instructions, installation difficulties remain.
Oversight(n=34): the driver, often in a hurry, has forgotten to attach the seatbelt, the harness or the CRS
itself (left in another vehicle). Fortunately, this reason is infrequent, but it does exist in particular when it
comes to attaching the harness.
Short journeys(n=27): the driver did not think it necessary to install the child properly for such a short
journey. This is not an oversight or a request by the child, but a conscious acceptance by the driver.
Here too, the risk is underestimated by parents.
Refusal by the child(n=27): the adult insisted that the child be installed correctly, but the child clearly
does not want to follow the rules she wants to impose! These are "rebel" children who always detach
themselves or lift their arms out of the harness or seatbelt, despite the parents' insistence (to the extent
of shouting, crying etc.)
A technical problem(n=12): The design of the car or the seat(s) makes a correct installation impossible.
These are problems related to:
 The widths of seats (too narrow for the CRS or for the number of restraints),
 The anchorages at the tops of the seatbelts,
 Non-functioning seatbelt buckles
 etc…
These technical problems are infrequent, and are detailed in the section on "geometric compatibility".
Page 30
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
100%
90%
80%
Problème technique
Trajet court
Refus enfant
Refus adulte
Complexité
Ignorance
Oubli
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Non utilisation d'un
moyen de retenue
(n=45)
Mauvaise
installation du
DRE (n=110)
Mauvaise
installation de
l'enfant (n=215)
Utilisation
inappropriée du
DRE / enfant
(n=60)
Figure 36: Inappropriate and incorrect installations
It is clear that most of the misuses are due to poor knowledge on the part of parents or difficulties in
stalling either the child or the restraint. Contrary to parents' claims, children bear very little responsibility
for their poor installation, as seen in the "child's refusal" cases. Objectively, it is the parents who give up
easily on enforcing the rules they are supposed to teach their children …
100%
90%
90%
80%
Oui
Non
Partielle
70%
60%
50%
41%
40%
34%
25%
30%
20%
10%
9%
1%
0%
Conscience de la bonne installation du
DRE (n=145)
Conscience de la mauvaise installation du
DRE (n=277)
Figure 37: Driver's awareness of the correct or incorrect installation
When the installation is successful, 90% of drivers are aware of it (130 of 145). What is more surprising is
that this proportion is still 34% when the installation is incorrect or inappropriate! We were very surprised
at this fact in our data, but it is perfectly true. Drivers transport their children in the full knowledge that
they are not correctly installed. They have little or no regard for the risks they run, or they are unaware of
them. This phenomenon has also been noted in other studies, as in Uruguay, when nearly 78% of parents
were aware of whether their child was installed properly or not [9].
Page 31
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
IV – BABY SEATS
Page 32
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
A- POSITION AND DIRECTION OF CHILDREN IN THE CAR
Rear-facing baby seats (n=103) are usually installed in the rear side seats (67% of cases): 36 were
installed at the rear right (35%) and 33 at the rear left (32%). The front passenger seat was used in 28% of
cases.
88% of baby seats were observed at the maternity unit, so we had at least the presence of the father
and the mother. The mother was seated either in front, or in the back next to the baby. This partly
explains the predominance of baby seats being positioned in the back.
Parents also provide other explanations, saying that on principle they prefer to place their children in
the back (7 parents) or they are worried about the front airbag (3 parents) and therefore place their
children in the back.
Conversely, 5 parents told us they had installed the baby seat in the front because they thought it was
obligatory.
N=29
28%
N=0
N=36
35%
N=0
N=5
5%
N=0
N=33
32%
N=0
Figure 38: Positions of baby seats in cars (n=103)
In 91% of cases, baby seats
the right direction(94 baby
installed facing the rear).
facing the road, and 2
sideways.
Face à la route En transversal
2%
7%
were positioned in
seats out of 103
7 were observed
were positioned
Dos à la route
91%
Figure 39: Direction of the baby seat in the car (n=103)
B- COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AIRBAG
Actif,
désactivable; 2
Actif, non
désactivable; 4
Inconnu; 1
Véhicule non
équipé; 8
Désactivé en
garage; 1
Désactivé
manuellement
(bouton clé); 13
For the 29 babies in baby seats
installed in the front passenger seat, 8
vehicles were not equipped with front
passenger airbags. For 13 babies, the
airbag
had
been
deactivated
manually or by a garage.
However, 6 babies were installed in the
front
passenger
with
the
front
passenger airbag active (of which 2
were in cars in which the airbag could
be deactivated).
Figure 40: Status of the front passenger airbag for the 29 babies in the front passenger seat
Page 33
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Photo 14: CRS wrongly installed in the front seat with an airbag that cannot be deactivated!
In nearly 300 interviews, mostly with the parents themselves, we were able to
collect a large amount of information, some of which goes beyond the data
collected through the study questionnaire. For example, we noted that when the
airbag sticker was positioned on the central pillar of the car, between the front
and rear doors, it was rarely seen by parents.
There are also misconceptions about the airbag issue due to the interpretation of
the sticker:
Photo 15: Airbag logo



According to some parents, the airbag logo means the car seat may not be positioned with its
back to the road.
For others, the airbag logo indicates that the car seat may not be positioned on the front
passenger seat.
Finally, still others think that disconnecting the airbag deactivates all the airbags in the vehicle.
C- USE AND INSTALLATION OF THE RESTRAINT SYSTEM
Utilisation correcte
et appropriée
23%
Inconnu
8%
Mauvaise utilisation
des deux
31%
Utilisation
inappropriée
1%
Mauvaise utilisation
de la ceinture
24%
Mauvaise utilisation
du harnais
13%
Figure 41: Use and installation of baby seats in cars
Page 34
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
There was almost no inappropriate use of baby seats reserved for children weighing less than 10 kg or 13
kg, depending on the model. However, this is the type of CRS that has the highest degree of incorrect
installation (77%). This means only 23% of baby carriers are installed correctly; this level is comparable to
that obtained with booster seats.
Incorrect installations relate to the seatbelt (24%), the harness (13%) or both together (31%).
The main error observed is the
incorrect routing of the seatbelt
attaching
the
restraint.
The
abdominal section of the seatbelt
is often inverted with the thoracic
section.
49
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
8
5
10
1
5
0
Ceinture non bouclée
Mauvais
cheminement de
sangle
Ceinture vrillée
Jeu dans la ceinture
Although some of them have read
the car seat instructions, parents
have difficulty attaching the baby
seat with the adult seatbelt. Some
had taken several minutes to
complete the exercise, while
others had even given up, setting
off with a baby seat that was not
attached or with the baby on their
lap!
Figure 42: Incorrect baby seat installations in cars
Photos 16 & 17: Incorrect baby seat installations (seatbelt straps reversed)
Parents take great care to ensure the newborn baby is not
cold and use a cover or blanket to cover the baby seat,
which hides the upper seatbelt slots. Accessories designed
for comfort sometimes disrupt the installation of the
restraint.
Having checked the installation, we showed the parents
how to attach the baby seat (see following page). When
the guide slots are in the upper part, our demonstration
was quickly understood by the parents, who found the
exercise simple, although they had previously made a
mistake installing the seat.
Photo 18: Seat wrongly installed with a cover hiding the upper guide slots
Page 35
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
Photo 19: Deactivate the airbag
Photo 21: Buckle the seatbelt
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Photo 20: Take the end of the belt and pass it over the CRS
Photo 22: Check that the belt passes through the guide slots
Photo 23: Bring the diagonal stretch of the belt behind the CRS and ensure it passes through the rear guide slots
Page 36
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
34
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
4
3
4
0
Harnais non attaché
Jeu dans le harnais
Harnais mal réglé (trop
haut)
Harnais sous le bras
Figure 43: Incorrect harness use on baby seats
Observing the baby's installation in the baby seat, the main misuse involved a harness that was adjusted
too loosely (more than two fingers' width). The harnesses were not tight enough for 34 children in baby
carriers out of 45.
Page 37
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
V – FORWARD-FACING
CHILD SEATS
Page 38
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
We observed 60 forward-facing
child seats with harnesses during our
study.
Very
few
presented
installation problems involving the
seatbelt alone. Incorrect installations
mainly involved the harness (32% of
cases).
Mauvaise
utilisation des
deux
18%
Mauvaise
utilisation du
harnais
32%
Utilisation
correcte et
appropriée
37%
Mauvaise
utilisation de la
ceinture
5%
Utilisation
inappropriée
8%
Figure 44: Use of forward-facing child seats in cars
The incorrect routing of the seatbelt
around the seat is the main
installation problem involving the
seatbelt. However, the number of
incorrect
seatbelt
installations
remains low.
8
8
7
6
5
4
4
3
2
2
1
0
Ceinture non bouclée
Mauvais cheminement de
sangle
Jeu dans la ceinture
Figure 45: Incorrect installations of forward-facing child seats in cars
The main incorrect installation
of the harness is when it is too
loose (more than two fingers'
width) for the child's body.
This unfortunately allows the
child's body to move further
in the event of an impact,
with a risk of hitting the
interior components of the
car with her head or being
partially ejected from the
CRS. The same is true if the
harness is the wrong height or
placed under the arm(s).
60
51
50
40
30
20
5
10
4
0
Jeu dans le harnais
Mauvais montage ou
mauvais réglage du
harnais
Harnais sous le bras
Figure 46: Incorrect harness installation in child seats
Page 39
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
VI – BOOSTER SEATS WITH
OR WITHOUT BACKRESTS
Page 40
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
The following results only concern booster seats in which the child is restrained by the car's seatbelt.
Booster seats with harnesses were not counted because of their rarity.
Utilisation
correcte et
appropriée
24%
Mauvaise
utilisation de la
ceinture
65%
Utilisation
inappropriée
11%
Figure 47: Use of booster seats in cars
Photo 24: Child installed incorrectly
with the seatbelt above the armrest
Although this is probably the simplest system to use, only 24% of children were installed correctly. In the
majority of cases, the seatbelt passes above at least one armrest. The effect of this is that in the event of
an impact the child could slide beneath the lap belt or be partially ejected from the CRS, striking a rigid
element inside the car.
30
30
25
25
20
15
10
9
5
Figure 48: Incorrect booster seat installations
Page 41
Ceinture dans le dos
Ceinture sous le
bras
Ceinture passant au
dessus de 2
accoudoirs
Ceinture passant au
dessus d'un
accoudoir
Jeu dans la ceinture
Utilisation du
mauvais pédoncule
3
Ceinture vrillée
1
Mauvais
cheminement de
sangle
1
Ceinture non
bouclée
3
2
"Bricolage maison"
5
0
9
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
VII – THE ISOFIX SYSTEM
Page 42
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
The ISOFIX system enables the restraint to be fixed more securely, and is designed to reduce the risk of
incorrect installation. It consists of two fixing brackets on the child seat which attach to two anchorages
at the bottom of the vehicle seat, between the backrest and the seat cushion. A third fixing point is now
available to avoid the seat turning (top tether or foot prop).
First available for child seats with harnesses, the ISOFIX system now exists for all child seat groups, from
the baby seat to the booster. Since 2006, ISOFIX anchorages have been mandatory on new models
and will also be required in new vehicles.
Fixing clip on car seat
Vehicle
anchorage
Photo 25: Principle of the ISOFIX seat fixing
Of the 391 children with known
seat equipment (figure 49), 44%
had
at
least
two
ISOFIX
anchorages in their vehicle seat
(171 out of 391), but only two were
using them, both correctly. The
third anchorage (top tether or foot
prop) in the boot of the vehicle
was not checked.
44%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
Of the 302 child restraint systems
observed, 4 had ISOFIX fittings but
only two were using them.
10%
1%
1%
5%
0%
% d'enfant sur une % de places ISOFIX
place avec ancrages
utilisées
ISOFIX
% de DRE avec
système ISOFIX
Figure 49: ISOFIX system
Oui
21%
Partielle
10%
Non
69%
Drivers had very little knowledge of the ISOFIX system.
Of 237 drivers who answered the question, 21%
actually knew about the system. We checked this
knowledge by asking them for a brief description of
the system and how it works. When the name was
familiar but not the details of the fixings, the driver's
knowledge of the system was classified as "partial".
Figure 50: Knowledge of the ISOFIX system
Some drivers confused the ISOFIX anchoring system with the system for fixing the car seat to its base. In
this case, the drivers were considered not to know about the ISOFIX system.
Page 43
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Having described the ISOFIX system, we asked the drivers for the reasons that encouraged them or
discouraged them from buying an ISOFIX seat (in the past or the future). Of the 223 drivers who
answered, 173 had not bought the system because they did not know about it. Other reasons
mentioned included the compatibility of the seat with one of their cars, the high price or the lack of
availability in the shops (survey conducted in 2008-2009).
Note that several drivers did not understand that an ISOFIX seat can still be used in a vehicle that is not
equipped with ISOFIX anchorages: the incompatibility criterion is thus not always a real reason.
180
173
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
19
13
14
3
0
Ne connaissait Prix trop elevé Non disponible
pas le système
en magasin
Véhicule non
équipé
Possédait déjà
un DRE non
ISOFIX
Figure 51: Obstacles to buying an ISOFIX system
Page 44
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
VIII – GEOMETRIC
COMPATIBILITY
Page 45
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
During our survey, we identified several problems of geometric compatibility. There were not many (12
out of 431), but they are worth emphasising for consideration in the short term.
They are mostly related to the size of the child seat, the geometry of the car seat and the position of the
seatbelt buckles or tensioners. They mostly affect children installed without a CRS or with a booster seat.
A- POSITION OF THE SEATBELT TENSIONER
Some vehicles do not have ideally located
seatbelt tensioners on the rear seats.
Children seated without a CRS or on a
booster seat sometimes find themselves with
a seatbelt that does not touch their
shoulder, sometimes with a gap of over 10
cm. The risk of being thrown out of the
restraint at the shoulder in the event of
impact is significant.
We also see this problem in vehicles where
the rear seats can move back or recline.
Ultimately, this is a problem for the
protection of children. In the models we
observed, the tensioners were not located
on the seat but on the rear pillar, remaining
fixed although the seat was mobile.
Photo 26: Too much space between the seatbelt and the child
We also observed that the height of certain child
restraint backrests was not compatible with the
position of the seatbelt tensioner. Is the child seat's
backrest too high, or is the vehicle's seatbelt tensioner
too low?
Photo 27: CRS backrest in contact with the seatbelt tensioner
Page 46
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
B- REAR HEADREST
In many cases, the headrest gets in the way of installing boosters
seats with backrests and/or harnesses. They do not allow the CRS
backrest to lie flat against the car's rear seat back. Many parents
have overcome this obstacle by removing the headrest or raising it
above the CRS backrest, where this is possible. Unfortunately, this
operation cannot be carried out for headrests that are built into the
back of the car's seat.
Photo 28: Car headrest above the CRS backrest
It should also be noted that some vehicles on the road have no
original headrest. For the child opposite, seated without a booster
seat, it was difficult to advise the mother: although the booster
can avoid the risk of submarining, it could worsen the risk of
whiplash (hyperextension of the neck caused by head
movement in the event of rear impact). A booster with a backrest
that is sufficiently high and strong could solve the problem.
Photo 29: No headrest
C- WIDTH OF THE REAR SEATS
We expected to encounter problems when installing three child restraints on the back seat of a vehicle.
In the end this situation did not arise often, or at least it did not pose any real installation problems.
However, problems of compatibility between the width of the CRS and the width of the car seat do
exist. This raises significant problems for engaging the belt in the buckle, with the risk of it coming loose.
Photos 30 & 31: Difficulty buckling the seatbelt due to the CRS being wider than the seat of the car
Page 47
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
IX – OVERVIEW OF PRODUCTS
AVAILABLE
Page 48
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
The choice of a child safety seat may be determined by what is available. We thus wanted to check
the quality and variety of the seats available in the various sales outlets. Child restraint systems are sold
mainly at four types of outlet:
o Car dealerships
o Car centres
o Childcare shops
o Supermarkets
Our observations focused on retail outlets in Evreux in the Prefecture of Eure. We did not carry out a truly
representative commercial survey. The goal was to obtain an overview of what was available in
December 2008 in a town of 50,000 inhabitants in the district targeted by the study.
A- CAR DEALERSHIPS
All the dealerships agreed to tell us about their product range. The 12 dealerships we visited are all
located within the town of Evreux.
The range available at all these dealerships is similar:







Few child safety seats available for sale.
Only two dealerships have child restraint systems on display.
CRSs are only available to order.
The staff admit they are not trained in this kind of product.
The prices are prohibitive despite the quality of the seats sold.
ISOFIX seats are well represented.
The volume of sales is negligible.
With regard to this last point, we heard some revealing stories:
"I've been here four years, and I've sold one."
"We must sell about three or four a year."
At the time of our survey, only two dealerships offered seats equipped with transponders or position
detectors. Usually as options, available for only part of the range of vehicles available, these systems
often require programming in the vehicle and lead to extra costs in addition to the price of the car seat.
B- CHILDCARE SHOPS
Specialising in childhood, childcare shops offer a wide range of child restraint systems (over 40 models
across all the groups). We visited two shops:





Over 40 restraint systems are available (excluding carry-cots).
Car seats are often available from stock.
The staff are trained and offer help with installation.
ISOFIX seats are poorly represented.
No CRS offered for sale has a transponder or position detector.
Photo 32: Demonstration seat in a childcare shop
Page 49
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
C- SUPERMARKETS
We visited three supermarkets in Evreux in December 2008. Little information is presented about the
restraint systems. The department managers are rarely present (except on request), and advice can be
hard to find (leaflets and information panels are rare etc.).




About 10 different restraint systems are available
for sale.
The car seats are often available on the shelves.
ISOFIX seats are little represented if at all.
No seats offered for sale have transponders or
position detectors.
Photo 33: Buying guide panel
D- CAR CENTRES
Car centres also sell child restraint systems.
Only two car centres in Evreux offered car seats for sale in December 2008.




Few car seats are available for sale.
The CRSs are often available on the shelves.
ISOFIX seats are not represented.
No seats offered for sale have transponders or position detectors.
E- APPROVAL
The 137 child restraint systems visible in the various sales outlets all had approval numbers (under
regulation R44/03 or R44/04). The orange label is often easily accessible, but some models do not have
a specific label (the approval number is incorporated into the assembly plan fixed to the seat) or have
a yellow label.
30 seat models were not visible (boxed or only available to order).
F- SEAT MAKES AND MODELS
Many makes are available on the market. Their market positioning is clearly established, and they often
only target one type of outlet. Only a few makes are available from two types of outlet (table 1 on the
following page).
Page 50
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Car dealerships
Childcare shops
Supermarkets
☑
BABYBUS
☑
BABIDEAL BAMBISOL
☑
☑
BEBE CONFORT
BILBERRY CHICCO
☑
BOULGOM NANIA
BRITAX
☑
CONCORD CYBEX
DISNEY BABY
EASY CALIN
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
EUROKIDS
☑
☑
FORMULA BABY
GRACO INGLESINA
☑
IWH
JANE
MAXICOSI
PEG PEREGO
RECARO
☑
REDCASTLE
REMIMAX RENOLUX
RÖMER
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
☑
TEXBABY TROTTINE
TRADEMAX
Car centres
☑
Table 1: Availability at different sales outlets
Car manufacturers do not produce their own seats. They offer approved seats made by car seat
manufacturers (Britax, Recaro, Römer), possibly with specific branding (a cover bearing the
manufacturer's name). We thus find the same seat models as in childcare shops.
The trade names of competitor brands are sometimes similar. In addition, they are often easy to confuse
with the ISOFIX system. Seats that attach to a base include a "fix" extension in their names similar to the
ISOFIX term. Examples: Autofix Plus, Cabriofix, CreatisFix, Newfix and PrimoViaggio Tri Fix (incomplete list).
Page 51
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
G- GROUPS AND CHILD WEIGHT
The European ECE R44 regulation defines the groups of CRS users. These groups are guides for parents to
make choosing a suitable seat easier.
In our survey, the groups and corresponding weight ranges correspond to the regulations, as follows:
GROUP 0:
up to 10 kg
GROUP 0+:
up to 13 kg
GROUP 1:
9 to 18 kg
GROUP 2:
15 to 25 kg
GROUP 3:
22 to 36 kg
Group and weight details are generally clearly displayed in sales outlets. 76% of child restraint systems
carried both types of information. 16% of seats only stated the weight information, and 5% only stated
the group.
Note that for the seats available from car dealerships (n=54), the survey only reflects information from
the catalogue, as the seats are only available to order.
3%
6%
16%
Aucun affichage
Affichage du groupe
Affichage du poids
Affichage du groupe et du poids
75%
Figure 52: Information provided about 197 car seats
Our observations in the various sales outlets also showed that the groups listed did not always
correspond to the same weight ranges across different retailers and different seats. The information
displayed on the restraint, its label or its packaging is not always standardised.
The seats offered for sale at the outlets we observed all referred to a weight range and/or a group.
However, we found references in catalogues to the age of the child, despite the relationship between
a child's age and weight being far from direct (see figures 13 and 14 on page 22).
Page 52
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Réhausse simple (GR 3)
Réhausse + dossier (GR 1-2-3)
Coque (GR 1)
Porte bébé ou coque dos à la route (GR 0-0+)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CONCESSIONS
AUTOMOBILES (12)
MAGASINS DE
PUERICULTURE (2)
GRANDES SURFACES
(3)
CENTRES AUTO (2)
Figure 53: Information surveyed about the 197 car seats observed
The proportions of types of seats sold are different at different sales outlets. At car dealerships, booster
cushion availability is also non-existent, as seats with backrests are always preferred.
In supermarkets and car centres, little choice is available in rear-facing baby seats. However, this does
not mean the proportions are the same in terms of sales.
H- ISOFIX AND TRANSPONDERS
100%
CLASSIQUES
75%
AVEC ISOFIX+TRANSPONDEUR
AVEC TRANSPONDEUR
AVEC ISOFIX
50%
25%
0%
CONCESSIONS
AUTOMOBILES (12)
MAGASINS DE
PUERICULTURE (2)
GRANDES
SURFACES (3)
CENTRES AUTO (2)
Figure 54: Options with the 197 car seats observed
Only one ISOFIX seat was available in the three supermarkets we visited in December 2008. ISOFIX
products were poorly represented overall, even in childcare shops.
Two car dealerships offered child restraint systems equipped with transponders or position detectors,
enabling the front passenger airbag to be deactivated automatically, but only with their car models
when the option was chosen when buying a new vehicle.
Page 53
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
CONCLUSIONS
As part of the CEDRE project, 277 vehicles on the roads of the Eure district (France) carrying children
were intercepted randomly between July 2008 and June 2009 to check the quality of their use of child
safety equipment. It turned out that of the 431 children in the cars 66% were incorrectly installed or using
an inappropriate Child Restraint System (CRS), i.e. no CRS or a CRS that was not suitable for the child's
body size. Rear-facing baby seats and booster seats with or without backrests were the systems with the
highest level of incorrect installation.
Daily and local journeys were most conducive to incorrect installations, but very long journeys also
showed the phenomenon, probably due to the child's discomfort and impatience.
In over half of all cases, the inappropriate use of a restraint involved the absence of a system when the
child's size required one. Most frequently, children had given up their booster seats too early and were
wearing seatbelts like adults, without child seats.
Incorrect installations involved problems with the seatbelt, the harness or both together. It was thus not
unusual to see several installation problems with the same restraint.
Incorrect routing of the seatbelt remained the main CRS installation error, especially for rear-facing
baby seats. The seatbelt straps are reversed and the baby seat is not properly attached to the seat of
the car. To this is often added excessive play in the harness, which will thus not provide adequate
protection for the child in the event of an impact.
With booster seats, the seatbelt often passes above an armrest and is not tight enough.
The ISOFIX system, designed to reduce the risk of these incorrect installations, is partially or totally
unknown to nearly 80% of drivers. Only two ISOFIX CRSs were observed in operation in our sample (1%). It
should be noted that this type of seat was not widely available in 2008 in either childcare shops or
supermarkets, where it is almost non-existent. Promoting these seats thus remains a priority.
Six children out of 29 were found to be installed in a rear-facing baby seat in the presence of an active
airbag. Interviews with parents revealed that the airbag logo and the option of deactivating the logo
were not always well understood.
Several problems of geometric compatibility were also observed. Seat widths and the positions of
seatbelt tensioners are not always suited to child restraints.
The incorrect installation of the child or the car seat arises from a lack of knowledge or practice or the
complexity of the installation, especially with baby seats. However, when the child is not attached at all,
this is because the parents did not insist and have given up applying the rules strictly.
66% of drivers knew the regulations and 34% of them were aware that their child was incorrectly
installed! Parents do not necessarily fully appreciate the risk their children run in the event of an
accident.
Reading the restraint instructions and carrying out a preliminary test installation significantly reduce the
level of mistakes. Advice in sales outlets is also helpful: the rate of incorrect installations is 81% among
drivers who have not received any advice, compared with 57% among those who received advice
when purchasing. However, this level still remains very high, and actions must be scaled up and
combined (information, tests, free checks, preventive measures and reinforced application of the law).
Page 54
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
A-
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR DRIVERS AND PARENTS
When we corrected poor installations, parents understood our demonstration of how to install the seats
perfectly well. Practical training would thus seem to be beneficial, and this is confirmed by the
reduction in the level of misuse when parents read the instructions and/or test the CRS installation
beforehand. It is important that parents familiarise themselves with the systems before installing them.
We therefore advise them:









B-
Not to hesitate to ask sales staff for advice when buying a car seat.
To try the seat in the car in the presence of sales staff where possible.
To check whether the CRS is suitable for the child: the child's head should not be higher than
the backrest of the CRS, and the age/weight groups can act as a guide.
To allow some time for the first installation of the car seat.
To read the instructions carefully before the installation.
To test the installation without the child to gain familiarity with the CRS.
To remember to deactivate the airbag if the vehicle has one.
To make sure the seatbelt and harness are properly tight.
To teach the child to attach herself properly, check how she does it and make her aware of
the risks.
FOR CAR MANUFACTURERS, PARTS SUPPLIERS AND CAR
SEAT MANUFACTURERS
The actual operation of disabling the airbag is sometimes unfamiliar to parents. Some think it will
deactivate all the airbags! The prohibition logo sticker showing a rear-facing CRS is also misinterpreted,
not to mention being easily missed when it is positioned on the car's central pillar. It is preferable to
position the logo on the outside of the dashboard, as most car manufacturers do.
Only 21% of drivers know about the ISOFIX system, and few are fully aware of their car's features (e.g.
presence of a front passenger airbag). These features should be better explained, when cars are sold
for example, especially to drivers transporting children.
In addition, instructions are often not read, and many parents content themselves with looking at the
explanatory sticker on the car seat. Nor is verification using blue or red markers a reflex for parents.
For rear-facing baby seats, it is easier to install a seat with guide slots on the upper part. Installing a car
seat with guide slots at the bottom is more difficult, and often requires parents to install the seat without
the child, which is not practical with a baby seat.
The instructions could include an explanatory diagram broken down into several steps, rather than a
diagram where the installation is already complete (see page 39).
Geometric compatibility problems were also observed due to the mismatch between the height of the
CRS backrest and the position of the seatbelt tensioners. Similarly, the tensioner position is not always
suitable for the seatbelt to pass over the child's shoulder. The risk is increased when seats can be moved
back or forward or reclined, because in most cases the tensioner is fixed on the rear pillar rather than on
the seat back. It thus remains fixed while the seat can be moved back.
A tensioner or a guide positioned on the seat back could improve the seatbelt position.
Page 55
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Standards exist for car seat geometries, but they are not always consistent with the geometries of child
restraint systems. Problems then arise in engaging the belt in the buckle when the base of the child seat
is wider than the seat of the car.
C-
FOR SALES OUTLETS
The ISOFIX system is very little known and not widely available for sale. We believe it is important to
promote this system designed to reduce incorrect child seat installations. The system also provides better
protection and is used by most car manufacturers in crash tests (www.euroncap.com).
The study showed the beneficial impact on incorrect installations of advice at the point of sale.
Demonstrating the seat's installation directly in the buyer (or future buyer)'s vehicle, as some retailers
already do, is strongly recommended.
Parents are often helpless when choosing a seat: should they look at the group, or the child's weight, or
their age? It is important to standardise this information and adopt consistent labelling between outlets.
D-
FOR ROAD SAFETY ORGANISATIONS
Until now, road safety organisations have primarily concentrated on the presence or absence of child
restraint systems in cars. This study clearly shows that the issue is not so much the absence of child seats
but their incorrect installation. Offers of loans or donations of child seats thus seem poorly suited to the
current problem, and it is essential to intensify efforts on raising awareness, accident prevention and
training parents in how to install child seats – though the two measures are not incompatible.
All the support offered to mothers (birthing classes, gynaecological visits etc.) could for example include
a section on installing car seats, which would also enable the father to be involved.
Training and awareness raising can probably be provided at PMI centres (district mother and baby
centres) and by childminders. Displays in nurseries and workshops in schools would also be useful.
Finally, the usual communication campaigns on the subject should be developed (posters, press,
specialist magazines etc.) for both young parents and the parents of older children.
Page 56
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] World report on road traffic injury prevention: summary – World Health Organization, Geneva,
2004
[2] Annual Statistic Report 2007 – ERSO European Road Safety Observatory
http://www.erso.eu/safetynet/fixed/WP1/2007/SN-1-3-ASR-2007.pdf
[3] http://www.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/
[4] Protection des enfants passagers de voiture : confort et utilisation en 1991 et 1992 (Protection for
child car passengers: comfort and use in 1991 and 1992) – Maryvonne DEJEAMMES, Blandine LE
BRETON, Aline ALAUZET - INRETS-LESCOT – INRETS Report No. 170
[5] CHILD Project: CHild Injury Led Design – publications available atwww.childincarsafety.com
[6] Étude par observation de la qualité de fixation et d'utilisation des dispositifs de retenue pour
enfants à bord des voitures (study observing the quality of installation and use of child restraint
systems in cars) - Association Prévention Routière 21/02/2008
http://zouletatou.fr/enquete.html
[7] Misuse of Child Restraints – Report n° DOT HS 809 671- Department of Transport, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration - January 2004
[8] Child Restraint Use in 2008 – Demographic Results - Traffic Safety facts, Research Note - DOT HS
811 148 - NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis - June 2009
[9] EDU-CAR / Year 2 – Results and Recommendations for Developing Countries - Protection of
children in cars – Alejandro FURAS et al. - 7th international conference, December 2009 - Munich
– Germany
[10] Étude sur l'utilisation du dispositif de retenue d'enfants "dos à la route" dans les véhicules (study
of the use of rear-facing child restraint systems in vehicles) – Fondation MAIF
http://www.fondationmaif.fr/portal/fondation/resultat_recherche?itemDesc=contenu&orderId=4&menuId=200040&th
emeid=300182&rubriqueid=300188&sousrubriqueid=300200&contentid=800102
[11] Child Restraint System Standard (CREST) – Fondation MAIF Publication available
athttp://www.fondationmaif.fr/portal/fondation/resultat_recherche?itemDesc=contenu&orderId=4&menuId=200040&th
emeid=300182&rubriqueid=300188&sousrubriqueid=300200&contentid=800108
[12] Effect of misuse of child restraint systems on the protection of their occupants - Philippe LESIRE
(PSA), Sophie CUNY (CEESAR), François ALONZO (INRETS), Gonzal TEJERA (IDIADA) - ICRASH
2006ATHENS – July 2006 – Paper 2006-52
[13] Misuse of child restraint systems in crash situations – danger and possible consequences Philippe LESIRE et al. - 51st AAAM conference, Melbourne, 2007
[14] How can the experience gained in testing CRS misuse in laboratory be useful for the
comprehension of real life crash consequences? Manuela CATALDI (FIAT), Philippe LESIRE (LAB
PSA / RENAULT), François ALONZO (INRETS), Gonzal TEJERA (IDIADA) - International Conference
Protection of Children in Cars - Munich – December 2006
Page 57
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDICES
Page 58
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 1: STANDARDS
The standards and reference texts are available to order from the AFNOR website:
http://portailgroupe.afnor.fr/v3/espace_information/normesreglementation/systemeretenue.
htm
Restraint systems
XP S 54-046,S54-046 - June 2005
Group 0/0+ car seats - Carrying function
Safety requirements and test methods
FD ISO/TR 13214, R10-111 - January 1998
Road vehicles. Child restraint systems. Compilation of regulations and standards.
FD ISO/TR 14645, R10-11 - January 1998.
Road vehicles. Test procedures for evaluating child restraint system interactions with deploying air bags
Anchorages
NF ISO 13216-1, R10-114-1 - August 2000
Road vehicles. Anchorages in vehicles and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems Part 1: Seat
bight anchorages and attachments
NF ISO 13216-2, R10-114-2 - November 2006
Road vehicles. Anchorages in vehicles and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems Part 2: Top
tether anchorages and attachments
NF ISO 13216-3, R10-114-3 - February 2007
Road vehicles. Anchorages in vehicles and attachments to anchorages for child restraint systems Part 3:
Classification of child restraint dimensions and space in vehicle.
Conditions of use
NF ISO 13215-1, R10-122-1 - January 2007
Road vehicles - Reduction of misuse risk of child restraint systems - Part 1: Forms for field studies
NF ISO 13218, R10-113 - January 1999
Road vehicles. Child restraint systems. Report form for accidents involving child passengers.
FD/ISO/TR 12349-2, R10-115-2 - February 2001
Dummies for restraint system testing. Part 2: Child dummies.
Projects:
PR NF ISO 14646, R10-106PR - Road vehicles. Side impact testing of child restraint systems
Survey:
3165411 - November 1998
Childcare articles.
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 2: REGULATIONS
ECE/UN Regulation 44 appended to the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958.
Uniform provisions concerning the approval of restraining devices for child occupants of power-driven
vehicles.
Council Directive 77/541/EEC of 28 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to safety belts and restraint systems of motor vehicles, last modified by Directives 2000/3 and
2005/40.
European Directive 91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991 (art. 5).
Directive 2003/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 April 2003 amending Council
Directive 91/671/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to compulsory use of
safety belts in vehicles of less than 3.5 tonnes
Directive 2005/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 amending
Council Directive 77/541/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to safety belts
and restraint systems of motor vehicles.
Decree 91-1321 of 27 November 1991 amending certain provisions of the French road traffic code.
Decree 91-1291 of 20 December 1991on the prevention of risks arising from the use of childcare articles.
Decree 2005-277 of 25 March 2005 on safety belts, amending the road traffic code
Decree 2006-1496 of 29 November 2006 on the compulsory wearing of safety belts and the use of child
restraint systems, amending the road traffic code.
Order of 3 December 1991 on the approval of child restraint systems in accordance with Geneva regulation
44.
Order of 26 January 1995 on the use of restraint systems for children transported by motor vehicles.
Order of 25 January 1995 on restraint systems for children transported by motor vehicles.
Amended order of 5 December 1996 on the community reception of safety belts and restraint systems in
motor vehicles and the community reception of vehicles with regard to safety belts and restraint systems.
Order of 17 January 2001 on safety belts and restraint systems in motor vehicles.
Order of 23 March 2007 repealing the Order of 9 July 1990 on the conditions for wearing safety belts in
motor vehicles and the Order of 27 December 1991 on the use of child restraint systems in motor vehicles
Consumer Safety Committee's Opinion of 10 October 2001 on the safety of child restraint systems (car
seats, multifunction seats, booster seats)
Notice of 28 March 2001 to manufacturers, importers and distributors of child seats with a dual function as car
seats and rockers
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 3: FRENCH ROAD TRAFFIC LAW
Consolidated version of 31 October 2008
Regulatory part
Book IV: Road use.
Title I: General provisions.
Chapter II: Vehicle and pedestrian traffic
Section 1: Equipment for vehicle users.
Article R412-1
Amended by Decree 2006-1496 of 29 November 2006 - art. 1 Official Journal of 1
December 2006 taking force on 1January 2008
I. - In traffic, all drivers and passengers of motor vehicles must wear an approved safety belt as long as the
seat they occupy is equipped with one in application of the provisions of book III.
Each seat equipped with a seatbelt may only be occupied by one person.
II. - However, the wearing of a safety belt is not mandatory:
1. For any person whose morphology is clearly unsuited to its wearing;
2. For any person with a medical exemption certificate issued by the district medical committee responsible
for assessing the physical aptitude of applicants for driving licences and of drivers or by the competent
authorities of a Member State of the European Community or the European Economic Area. This medical
certificate must state its validity period and include the symbol specified in article 5 of Council Directive
91/671/EEC of 16 December 1991;
3. In emergencies, for any driver or passenger of a priority public interest vehicle or ambulance;
4. For taxi drivers in service;
5. In towns, for any driver or passenger of a public service vehicle required by its duties to stop frequently;
6. In towns, for any driver or passenger of a vehicle carrying out door-to-door deliveries.
III. - Contraventions of the provisions of this article by any driver or passenger are punishable by the fine
stipulated for fourth-class contraventions.
IV. - If the contravention is committed by the driver, it leads automatically to three points being deducted from
the driving licence.
Article R412-2
Amended by Decree 2006-1496 of 29 November 2006 - art. 2 Official Journal of 1
December 2006
I. - In traffic, all drivers of motor vehicles with seats equipped with safety belts in application of the provisions
of book III in which the number of seats including the driver's seat does not exceed nine must ensure that any
passengers he is transporting who are aged under 18 years are restrained by an approved child restraint
system or a safety belt.
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
In vehicles of the same capacity, seats not equipped with a safety belt may not be used to transport a child
under the age of three.
II. - Similarly, the driver must ensure that all children aged under ten are restrained by an approved child
restraint system suited to their size and weight.
III. - However, the use of an approved child restraint system is not mandatory:
1. For any child whose morphology is suitable for the wearing of a safety belt;
2. For any child with a medical exemption certificate that states its validity period and includes the symbol
specified in paragraph 2 of section II of article R412-1;
3. For any child transported in a taxi or public transport vehicle.
IV. - Contraventions of the provisions of this article by any driver are punishable by the fine stipulated for
fourth-class contraventions.
NOTE:
Decree 2006-1496 art. 6: These provisions are applicable in Mayotte.
Article R412-3
Amended by Decree 2006-1496 of 29 November 2006 - art. 3 Official Journal of 1
December 2006
I. - Transporting a child aged under ten years in the front seat of a motor vehicle is prohibited except in one of
the following cases:
1. If the child is transported facing the rear in an approved restraint system specially designed to be installed
in the front of the vehicle and if the front airbag is disabled;
2. If the vehicle has no rear seat or if the rear seat is not equipped with a safety belt;
3. If the rear seats of the vehicle are temporarily unusable or occupied by children aged under ten years,
provided that each child transported is restrained by a system specified in section II of article R. 412-2.
II. - Contraventions of the provisions of this article by any driver are punishable by the fine stipulated for
fourth-class contraventions.
NOTE:
Decree 2006-1496 art. 6: These provisions are applicable in Mayotte.
Article R412-4
Orders from the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Interior set out the conditions of application of
articles R. 412-1 to R. 412-3.
Orders from the Minister of Transport set out the conditions for approving safety belts and child restraint
systems.
Article R412-5
The provisions of Articles R. 412-1 to R. 412-4 do not apply to military convoys and transports or
to vehicles from civil security investigation and intervention units, which are covered by specific rules.
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 4: ECE R44/04 STANDARD
http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/standards/r4403.htm
Safety Standards: ECE R44.03 and ECE R44.04
Child restraints (baby seats, child seats, booster seats and booster cushions) sold in the UK must conform to the
United Nations ECE Regulation R44.03 or later standard (R44.04).
(Child restraints that conform to a British Standard or to an earlier version of R44, may continue to be used,
although as these will now be several years old, parents should consider replacing them with a seat that conforms
to R44.03 or R44.04).
The standard, ECE R44.04, was introduced at the end of June 2005, and all new child car seats had to meet this
standard from the end of June 2006.
United Nations ECE Regulation No. 44
"Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Restraining Devices for Child Occupants of Power-Driven
Vehicles ('Child Restraint Systems')"
To conform to the Regulation, a child restraint must meet a series of design and construction requirements and
pass a series of performance tests, the main ones of which are summarised below.
Main Design Requirements
The child restraint must provide protection in any position in which it is designed to be used. It must be designed
to be secured to the vehicle structure or to the seat structure, either by the adult seat belt or specific anchorages.
Seat Belt Routes
If a restraint is to be used with an adult seat belt, the correct routing of the seat belt webbing must be clearly
indicated by a drawing permanently attached to the restraint.
If the restraint is held in place by the seat belt, the route(s) of the webbing must clearly marked and colour coded
red for forward-facing seats and blue for rearward facing ones.
Restraints in Groups I, 2 and 3, must positively guide the "lap strap" to ensure that the loads transmitted by the
"lap strap" are transmitted through the pelvis.
To prevent submarining (slipping under the harness), either by impact or through restlessness, a crotch strap is
required on all forward-facing Group I restraints which incorporate an integral harness.
The Buckle
The buckle must be easy to operate and it must be possible to open it and release the child from the restraint by a
single operation on a button or similar device. Opening the buckle must enable the child to be removed
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
independently of the "chair", "chair support" or "impact shield", if fitted, and if the restraint includes a crotch strap,
the crotch strap must be released by operation of the same buckle.
It must not be possible for the buckle to be left in a partially closed position and it must only lock when all parts are
engaged. The operation of the buckle must be immediately obvious to a rescuer in an emergency. The buckle
release area must be red, but no other part of the buckle should be this colour.
For Group 2 and 3 child restraints, the child occupant must be able to reach the buckle.
Child's Position
Restraints in Groups 0, 0+ and I restraint systems must keep the child positioned to give the required protection
even when the child is asleep. The design of rear-facing restraints must ensure that support for the child's head is
provided.
Main Performance Tests
Child restraints must pass a series of performance tests:
Impact Tests
Frontal Impact
The child restraint is fitted onto a vehicle or a test trolley in a vehicle body. Test dummies of various sizes
(appropriate to the child restraint) are fitted into the restraint. This is then accelerated at 50 km/h towards a block
of reinforced concrete weighing at least 70 tonnes.
Rear Impact
A rigid steel impactor at least 2,500 mm wide and 800 mm high is accelerated towards the rear of the 'vehicle' so
that it strikes the 'vehicle' at between 30 and 32 km/h.
During the tests, the test dummy must not be thrown forward more than a set distance and it must not receive an
impact force above a specified level. No part of the child restraint that helps to keep the child in position shall
break, and no buckles or locking system shall release. The seat belt must not become disengaged from any guide
or locking device.
Overturning
A test dummy is strapped into the restraint according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restraint is fastened
to a test or vehicle seat, which is rotated through an angle of 360 degrees at a speed of 2-5 degrees/second.
When the seat is upside down, the dummy's head must not move more than 300 mm from its original position in a
vertical direction relative to the test seat.
Buckle
The buckle is opened and closed 5,000 times, and must still operate properly after the impact tests described
above.
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Markings
The restraint must be clearly and indelibly marked with:





the manufacturer's name, initials or trade mark
the year of production
the international approval mark - a circle surrounding the letter "E", an approval number and the symbols: E/ECE/324
the weight range for which the child restraint has been designed
an address to which the customer can write to obtain further information on fitting the child restraint in specific cars.
Rearward facing child restraints must have a permanently attached label, visible in the installed position, with the
warning: "EXTREME HAZARD - Do not use in passenger seats equipped with airbags".
Child restraints that can be used forward and rearward facing, must have a warning including the words:
"IMPORTANT - DO NOT USE FORWARD FACING BEFORE THE CHILD'S WEIGHT EXCEEDS xx (Refer to
instructions)"
Instructions
The child restraint must be accompanied by instructions in the language of the country where the device is sold,
including the following:














The weight groups for which the device is intended.
The method of installation illustrated by photographs and/or very clear drawings.
A recommendation that rigid items and plastic parts must be installed so that they are not liable, during everyday use
of the vehicle, to become trapped by a movable seat or in a vehicle door.
A recommendation to use carry-cots perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.
For rearward facing systems, a warning not to use them in seating positions where there is an airbag installed (this
advice must also be clearly visible at the point of sale without removing the packaging).
If the restraint is designed to be used with an adult seat belt, advice about which type of seat belt is suitable.
For seats that can be used both forward and rear-facing, a clear warning to keep the restraint rear-facing until the
child's weight is greater than a stated limit, or some other dimensional criterion is exceeded.
A clear explanation of the operation of the buckle and adjusting devices.
A recommendation that any straps holding the restraint to the vehicle should be tight, that any straps restraining the
child should be adjusted to the child's body, and that straps should not be twisted.
The importance of ensuring that lap straps are worn low down over the pelvis.
A recommendation that the restraint should be changed if it has been in an accident.
Instructions for cleaning.
A warning not to make any alterations or additions to the restraint and to follow the manufacturer's instructions when
installing and using it.
A recommendation that children are not left in their child restraint unattended.
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 5: CEDRE PROJECT QUESTIONNAIRE
LV: no.……… CHILD: no.……… CHILD SECTION
Child's position:
Group
0
0+
I
II
III
10kg
13kg
918kg
1525kg
2236kg
CRS approval:
Configuration used:
2
4
8
CRS direction: Forward-facingRear-facing
Lateral (carry-cot)No CRS
5
6
9
Wrong direction yes no  No CRS
1
3
7
Reason for incorrect installation AB logo misunderstood
Rear-facing=front passenger LogisticsNo child in front
(AB fear)No child in front (principle)AB switchable in
other LV
CHILD'S MORPHOLOGY
Trade name:………………………………………..
Sex: M / F Age: ……… yrs ………mths………days
Approval no. : ……………………………...
Height (cm): ……… Weight (kg): …………
Vehicle seat occupied by child equipped with ISOFIX:
Yes  No  DK
Relationship to child:……………………..
CRS/CHILD CHECK
Suitable CRS
No CRS 
suitable
ISOFIX CRS: Yes  No  DK
No CRS  not
suitable
ISOFIX fixings used: Yes  No  DK
Lateral airbag in seat occupied by child (backrest or
curtain) Yes  No  DK
Geometric incompatibility No Belt clipSeat
shape/CRSHeadrest in way
Headrest removed Other
Carry-cot
Child seat with
table
Rear-facing baby Forward-facing child
seat
seat
Booster seat with
harness
Booster seat with
backrest
MISUSE OF SEATBELT
Yes  No  DK
 Incorrect fixing of ISOFIX system
 Seatbelt not buckled
 Seatbelt twisted
 Use of wrong buckle
 Play in seatbelt holding CRS
 Wrong routing of belt around CRS
 Play in seatbelt restraining child
 Seatbelt behind backSeatbelt beneath arms
 Seatbelt passing over one armrest
Seatbelt passing over both armrests
Booster cushion
3-point seatbelt
only
2-point seatbelt
only
Built into vehicle
seat
Basket
Lap
MISUSE OF HARNESS
Yes  No  DK No harness
 Harness/strap not attached
 Play in harness/strap (no. of fingers)…………….
 Harness twisted
 Incorrect harness assembly on CRS
 Other incorrect harness adjustment:
 Harness too high/shoulders
 Harness too low/shoulders
 Harness straps behind back
 Harness straps under arms
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
Seatbelts used by adult(s): ………………
Who installed the seat?:
DadMumFriendFamilyunknownNo CRS
Front passenger airbag
No Active  Deactivated DK
Did you test it beforehand?
YesNoWith 1st childQuicklyDK
Deactivation mode:
None  Manual AutomaticDeactivated in
garageDK
Have you read the CRS instructions?
NoRegularlyRecently-1st installationWith 1st
childNo instructionsDK
Knowledge of the risk of deployment of the front airbag
Yes  No  DK Partial
Did you find the instructions
SimpleComplicatedNot readNo
instructionsDK
Knowledge of the ISOFIX system: Yes  No  DK
Partial
Source of CRS: Bought new recentlyBought new (for
1st child)Bought usedLentGiftOtherDK
Place of purchase: Childcare shopSupermarketCar
centreCar dealershipInternetCar bootPrivate
saleLoan/giftDK
Selection criteria:
AvailabilityPriceComfort/versatilityQuality/saf
ety
Tests/comparisonsDesign/aestheticsFull kit (with
pushchair)OtherDK
Reason for choosing/not choosing ISOFIX:
IgnoranceSafetyPriceIncompatibility with
carRetail availabilityOtherDK
Knowledge of regulations:
Yes  No  DK  Partial
Knowledge of child safety
Yes  No  DK  Partial
How did you learn? …………………………
JOURNEY
Sales advice: NoSpontaneousOn requestNot
necessaryNot available (gift, loan, Internet)DK
Where are you going (to/from)?
………………..…………….
Total distance to cover: ……………….............
LV: no.……… VEHICLE SECTION
Distance covered: ………………………………….
SURVEY
Interviewer:
Location:
DRIVER
Road type:
Date: ………………
No. children at home:
Time: ………………
Nationality:
THE VEHICLE
Sex: M / F
Marital status:
Occupation:
Level of education:
Town of residence:
Make/Model: ………………………………….
House/flat?
Year: …………Owner of the vehicle? Yes/No
Number of seats in the vehicle: ...….
Acceptability of CEDRE study: Normal Requester (for
validation)  Refusal (hurry) Refusal (outright)
Visual observation only
Number of passengers in the vehicle:……….….
Number of children in the vehicle: ………………
PROBABLE REASONS - INCORRECT CHILD RESTRAINT
SECTION
Oversight

No use of restraint

Incorrect CRS installation

Incorrect child installation

Use of inappropriate CRS for child
Awareness of use/misuse of CRS before survey:
Awareness of use/misuse of CRS after survey:
Knowledge of effects of misuse:
Age:
CHILD
Ignorance
Complexity








Adult
refusal




Yes


Child
refusal




No


Short trip




Partial


None




Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 6: "THE CAR SEAT" ROAD SAFETY LEAFLET
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 7: "GASTOUNET" ROAD SAFETY LEAFLET
Fondation MAIF / C. LEDON
CEDRE Project – Agreement 2008-02
APPENDIX 8: NOTICE FOR MATERNITY UNIT PATIENTS
NOTICE FOR PATIENTS
CEDRE PROJECT
STUDY AND VERIFICATION
OF CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS
The maternity department informs you that a study of child protection will be
conducted within the hospital from 21 July to 31 August 2008.
The study is designed to gain a better understanding of road users' behaviour
and improve road safety. An accident specialist may ask you to answer a
questionnaire as you leave the hospital.
Thank you for your understanding.
The maternity department.
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement