Assessment of solutions to improve the restraint conditions of

Assessment of solutions to improve the restraint conditions of
Loughborough University
Institutional Repository
Assessment of solutions to
improve the restraint
conditions of children in
vehicles [Deliverable 4.6 of
the EC FP7 Project
CASPER]
This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository
by the/an author.
Citation: ALEJANDRO, A. ... et al, 2013. Assessment of solutions to improve
the restraint conditions of children in vehicles [Deliverable 4.6 of the EC FP7
Project CASPER], 187pp.
Additional Information:
•
CASPER Project Deliverable no.
D4.6 (Merged from D4.2, D4.3 and
D4.5).
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/24757
Version: Published
Publisher: CASPER Project EU
Rights: This work is made available according to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence.
Full details of this licence are available at:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Please cite the published version.
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
PROJECT DELIVERABLE
CASPER
CHILD ADVANCED SAFETY PROJECT FOR EUROPEAN ROADS
Grant Agreement number: 218564
Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made: 31/12/2011
Deliverable No.:
D4.6 (Merged from D4.2, D4.3 and D4.5)
Deliverable Name:
Assessment of solutions to improve the restraint
conditions of children in vehicles
Dissemination level:
Public
Written By:
Alejandro Longton (Applus IDIADA)
Tel: +34 600 927 756, [email protected]
Joshua Gidney (Applus IDIADA)
Tel: +34 977 166 733, [email protected]
Philippe Lesire (GIE RE PR)
Tel: +33 1 76 87 35 60, [email protected]
Alan Kirk (Loughborough University)
Tel: +44 (0)1509 226940, [email protected]
Elizabeth Dodson (Loughborough University)
[email protected]
Gerd Müller (VFSB)
Tel: +49 30 314 72 996, [email protected]
Ines Lehmann (VFSB)
Tel: +49 30 692057212, [email protected]
Heiko Johannsen (TUB)
Tel: +49 30 31 47 29 88, [email protected]
Britta Schnottale (BASt)
Tel: +22 04 43-655, [email protected]
Reakka Krishnakumar (CEESAR)
Tel: +33 1 76 87 54 93, [email protected]
Checked by
Alejandro Longton (Applus IDIADA)
Tel: +34 600 927 756, [email protected]
Approved by
Philippe Lesire (GIE RE PR)
Tel: +33 1 76 87 35 60, [email protected]
Issue date
15 November 2012
1/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
This page is left blank intentionally.
2/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report was to provide applications and research results for the
improvement of child protection systems. As well as considering the effect any CRS
improvements would have on policies or any legislation that would need to be
created or improved.
The issue of cost and subsidies for child restraints is considered. Research on the
effectiveness of interventions is reported and recommendations on future policies are
made.
Results from the sociological survey carried out as part of the CASPER project
proved to be an extremely valuable resource as many of the proposed solutions are
based on information gathered in the survey.
As child safety is of global importance the CASPER project gathered data relevant to
child safety laws and regulations from a large array of countries this data is displayed
in this report.
Recent statistics show that a large percentage of CRS are misused, this project aims
to reduce this figure by implementing innovative designs and creating new legislation.
To list some of the ways CRS are being misused: they are being incorrectly installed
i.e. putting a rearward facing device in a forward facing position or incorrectly
fastening the seatbelt to the device. Parents play a key role in child safety and this is
researched in great depth within this project.
Research was carried out in to ways of preventing these types of CRS misuse as well
as researching other problems with CRS such as the issue with transporting children
with disabilities. The proposed solutions are presented alongside any issues that
might occur.
One of the key areas of CRS improvement is Car-to-CRS communication, this ties in
with integrated CRS as the idea is to make CRS fully homologated for the car.
ISOFIX involves having anchors built into the car which CRS can fix onto. The next
step is to develop Car-to-CRS communication so that the CRS can benefit from the
cars safety features. Car manufacturers can also build CRS directly into the car
creating integrated CRS which are also considered in this document.
At the moment CRS are predominantly used in cars, however they could also be
used in aeroplanes, trains and busses. Although they would have to be optimised for
each of the different situations, for example the CRS for aeroplanes would focus
more on preventing injuries caused by turbulence than crashing. During this project
the CASPER consortium investigated and evaluated the systems which are currently
available or currently being developed.
This was done by analysing the demands and applications in terms of research,
development and approval of CRS for child protection
3/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
This page is left blank intentionally.
4/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
2
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................ 11
PROPOSAL OF SOLUTIONS BASED ON THE SOCIAL STUDY RESULTS ............... 13
2.1
IMPROVING THE KNOWLEDGE OF CHILD SAFETY ISSUES BY NEW RESEARCHES AND
METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................................... 13
2.2
GIVING MORE INFORMATION TO PARENTS ......................................................................... 14
2.3
DEVELOPING RISK AWARENESS AMONG CHILDREN ........................................................... 15
2.4
SPECIALIZED SHOPS AND SUPERMARKETS: HELPING PARENTS IN THE SELECTION OF THE
CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................... 16
3
BACKGROUND POINTS TO CHILD IN-CAR TRANSPORT SAFETY POLICIES........ 17
3.1
EFFECTIVENESS OF CHILD RESTRAINTS ............................................................................ 17
3.2
LIABILITY .............................................................................................................................. 18
3.3
TYPES OF INTERVENTION.................................................................................................... 19
3.4
LESSONS FROM SEAT BELT USAGE ................................................................................... 20
4
OVERVIEW OF CURRENT EUROPEAN CHILD IN-CAR TRANSPORT SAFETY
POLICIES ............................................................................................................................................ 22
4.1
PAN EUROPEAN REGULATIONS .......................................................................................... 22
4.2
AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL POLICY INFORMATION ................................................................. 22
4.3
EUROSAFE DATA (EUROPEAN CHILD SAFETY ALLIANCE) .................................................. 22
4.4
WHO DATA .......................................................................................................................... 22
4.5
ROSPA / AA/ RAC INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 24
4.6
CLEOPATRA DATABASE................................................................................................... 24
4.7
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DATA (DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR MOBILITY AND
TRANSPORT) ..................................................................................................................................... 24
4.8
CHILD TRANSPORT SAFETY POLICIES BY COUNTRY ........................................................ 25
4.8.1 Belgium ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.8.2 France ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.8.3 Germany ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.8.4 Greece ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.8.5 Italy .................................................................................................................................. 29
4.8.6 The Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 31
4.8.7 Poland ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.8.8 Spain ............................................................................................................................... 39
4.8.9 Sweden ........................................................................................................................... 39
4.8.10
UK ............................................................................................................................... 40
4.8.11
Beyond Europe ......................................................................................................... 41
5
NOTABLE CHILD TRANSPORT SAFETY CAMPAIGNS ................................................. 43
5.1
EUCHIRES (ARMADILLO CAMPAIGN) ................................................................................ 43
5.2
BOOST’EM IN THE BACK SEAT ............................................................................................. 44
5.3
GOOD EGG .......................................................................................................................... 45
5.4
REAR FACING: THE WAY FORWARD................................................................................... 46
5.5
OLLIE OTTER ........................................................................................................................ 47
5.6
BUCKLE UP BEAR ................................................................................................................. 48
5.7
WHO SAFE COMMUNITIES MODEL ....................................................................................... 48
5.8
THINK! EDUCATION ............................................................................................................ 50
5.9
CHILD SAFETY EDUCATION CAMPAIGN IN GERMANY........................................................ 51
5.9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 51
5.9.2 Aim and Purpose of Child Safety Education for Multipliers .................................... 52
5.9.3 Multipliers ....................................................................................................................... 52
5.9.4 The education concept ................................................................................................. 53
5.9.5 Theory – necessary basic knowledge........................................................................ 53
5.9.6 Practice – learning by doing ........................................................................................ 54
6
KEY FEATURES ACROSS CAMPAIGNS ............................................................................ 55
6.1
CRS COST AND SUBSIDIES ................................................................................................. 55
5/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
7
EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................. 58
7.1
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 58
7.2
CASUALTY STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 58
7.3
EU DATA .............................................................................................................................. 60
7.4
STUDIES ............................................................................................................................... 61
8
IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT SAFETY REGULATIONS ............................................ 64
8.1
ESTIMATION OF SAFETY BENEFITS ..................................................................................... 64
8.2
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE II OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW REGULATION .. 66
9
DEFINITION OF ACTIONS OF COMMUNICATION AND THEIR POSSIBLE IMPACTS
ON THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS .............. 67
9.1
INTRODUCTION: ................................................................................................................... 67
9.2
MAIN MESSAGES TO BE DELIVERED BY TARGETS: ............................................................. 67
9.2.1 Parents: .......................................................................................................................... 67
9.2.2 Children: ......................................................................................................................... 68
9.2.3 Public authorities: .......................................................................................................... 68
9.2.4 Industries (Safety device development): ................................................................... 68
9.2.5 Industries (Sale departments): .................................................................................... 69
9.2.6 Day-nurseries / hospitals: ............................................................................................ 69
9.3
POSSIBLE WAYS OF DISSEMINATING INFORMATION........................................................... 69
9.3.1 Parents: (target = children, other parents) ................................................................ 70
9.3.2 Public authorities: (target = parents, all contributors) .............................................. 70
9.3.3 Maternity / Hospitals: (target = parents) .................................................................... 70
9.3.4 Nurseries/paediatric doctors: (target = parents)....................................................... 70
9.3.5 Public education system (school): (target = children and parents) ...................... 71
9.3.6 Consumer organizations: (target = parents, public authorities) ............................. 71
9.3.7 Press: Tv and radio spots / paper press: (target parents, children) ...................... 72
9.3.8 Insurance: (target parents) .......................................................................................... 72
9.3.9 industry (Commercial branch): (target parents) ....................................................... 73
9.3.10
industry (Safety device development): (target parents, insurance, consumer
organisations, public authorities) ............................................................................................. 73
9.3.11
Parks and Museum: (targets: children and parents) ........................................... 73
9.3.12
Cultural referents: (targets: children and parents) ............................................... 74
9.4
ILLUSTRATION WITH A RECENT COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGN ............................................ 74
10 IMPROVEMENT OF THE DESIGN OF CRS ........................................................................ 75
10.1 IMPROVEMENTS FOR HARNESS SYSTEMS .......................................................................... 76
10.2 IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOOSTER CRS ................................................................................. 82
11 INTEGRATED CRS ................................................................................................................... 87
11.1 HANDLING DUMMIES ........................................................................................................... 91
11.1.1
Ma1 – Integrated Booster with Side Head Rest................................................... 91
11.1.2
Ma3 – Integrated Booster at the Rear Mid Seat .................................................. 95
11.1.3
Ma5 – Integrated Booster ........................................................................................ 95
11.2 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 98
12 EXPERT EVALUATION OF SAFETY DEVICES AND DETECTED PROBLEMS ....... 102
12.1 SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ..................................................................................................... 102
12.2 LAW AND REGULATION ...................................................................................................... 104
12.3 CRS-CAR INTERFACE ....................................................................................................... 105
12.4 RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................... 106
12.5 MISUSE AND CRS TECHNICAL ISSUES ............................................................................. 106
13 CHILD SAFETY SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................... 108
13.1 TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS ..................................................................................................... 108
13.2 INNOVATION SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................... 109
13.3 ACCESSORIES AND ADD-ONS SOLUTIONS ........................................................................ 110
13.4 ANTI-ESCAPE DEVICES SOLUTIONS .................................................................................. 114
13.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ON CHILD SAFETY SOLUTIONS ........................................ 115
14 POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE ....................................................................... 117
14.1 BUSES ................................................................................................................................ 117
6/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
14.1.1
Pequebus ................................................................................................................. 117
14.1.2
SRI project ............................................................................................................... 118
14.2 AEROPLANES AND TRAINS ................................................................................................ 119
14.3 TRANSPORTATION OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS ........................................................................................................................................... 121
14.3.1
Solutions for prematurity and low birth weight ................................................... 121
14.3.2
Solutions for children with casts ........................................................................... 122
14.3.3
Solutions for children with neuromuscular conditions and cerebral palsy ..... 122
14.3.4
Solutions for children with hydrocephalus .......................................................... 122
14.3.5
Solutions for children with Behaviour Challenges ............................................. 123
14.3.6
Solutions for children with Obesity ....................................................................... 123
14.3.7
Proposed improvements on CRS......................................................................... 123
14.3.8
Evaluation of the solutions for children with special needs .............................. 123
15 CAR-TO-CRS COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................... 125
15.1 CAR-TO-CRS COMMUNICATION ....................................................................................... 125
15.2 SAFETY DEVICES ............................................................................................................... 129
15.2.1
Pre-tensioner and load limiter ............................................................................... 129
15.2.2
Passenger Airbag ................................................................................................... 132
15.2.3
Side Airbag/ Curtain ............................................................................................... 133
15.2.4
Other Safety Devices ............................................................................................. 137
16 CAR-TO-CRS INTERFACE ................................................................................................... 138
16.1 INTERFACE FOR BELTED CRS .......................................................................................... 141
16.2 ISOFIX CRS ..................................................................................................................... 142
16.3 BOOSTER TYPE CRS WITH ISOFIX ................................................................................. 149
16.4 THIRD ANCHORAGE POINT ................................................................................................ 155
17 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 157
17.1 OVERVIEW-CURRENT SITUATION ...................................................................................... 157
17.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 159
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 160
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................. 161
APPENDIX B. ................................................................................................................................... 172
APPENDIX C. ................................................................................................................................... 176
APPENDIX D. ................................................................................................................................... 177
APPENDIX E..................................................................................................................................... 179
7/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Use of seat-belts by car drivers/front seat passenger in urban and non-urban areas
of Finland, 1966-1995 ............................................................................................................21
Figure 2: WHO data on the presence of child restraint laws across the world .......................23
Figure 3: Percentage of children observed or not in accordance with regulations carried .....35
Figure 4: Armadillo campaign.................................................................................................43
Figure 5: Images from the Armadillo campaign in Austria.....................................................44
Figure 6: Logos for the Good Egg Campaign........................................................................45
Figure 7: Banner from the Ollie Otter campaign....................................................................47
Figure 8: Logo from the Buckle Up Bears Campaign............................................................48
Figure 9: Reported children killed or seriously injured by......................................................59
Figure 10: Reported car occupant fatalities by age group: Great Britain 1994-2010 ............59
Figure 11: Number of child car passenger fatalities (0-13yrs) and proportion ......................61
Figure 12: Visual harness tension indicator [Bendjellal et al., 2007] .....................................76
Figure 13: CRS markings according to the AS/NZ1754 [Lumley 1, 2009] .............................77
Figure 14: Concept Group I CRS [Müller et al., 2009]............................................................78
Figure 15: Harness tensioning and buckle control [Müller et al., 2009]..................................78
Figure 16: Harness Position Control [Müller et al., 2009].......................................................79
Figure 17: Accident Exposure [Müller et al. 2009]..................................................................79
Figure 18: Information display acc. to [Müller et al., 2009].....................................................80
Figure 19: Global Indicator for ISOFIX and Top Tether Control [Gallegos et al., 2010].........80
Figure 20: Integrated CRS for Group I [Truckenbrodt, 2005] .................................................81
Figure 21: Prototype Pretensioner and Load Limiter for Harness System CRS [Martinez et
al., 2011].................................................................................................................................81
Figure 22: Child Seat Presence and Orientation Detection [Brämig, 2006] ...........................82
Figure 23: 2-stage booster cushion [Jakobsson et al. 2007]..................................................82
Figure 24: Integrated CRS with cut out for improved lap belt routing [Truckenbrodt, 2005]...83
Figure 25: Self-adjusting Integrated Child Restraint System [Boyraz et al., 2007].................83
Figure 26: Harness systems and lap belt positioning devises [Lumley 2, 2009] ....................84
Figure 27: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 1 .........................................................88
Figure 28: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 3 (rear mid position) ...........................88
Figure 29: Integrated two-stage CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 3.........................................89
Figure 30: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 4 .........................................................90
Figure 31: Integrated CRS Group II and Labelling Manufacturer 5.......................................90
Figure 32: Side Head Rest Ma1 – Pictograms and Indicator .................................................92
Figure 33: N15 Handling Dummy (15kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 .........................................92
Figure 34: N18 Handling Dummy (18kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 .........................................93
Figure 35: Remaining booster width using N18 on Ma1 booster (right and left side).............93
Figure 36: N25 Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 (with side head rest) ........94
Figure 37: N25 Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 (without side head rest) ...94
Figure 38: Remaining booster width using N25 on Ma1 booster (right and left side).............94
Figure 39: Integrated Booster Ma3 – rear mid seat................................................................95
Figure 40: N15 Handling Dummy (15kg) – CRS Group II Ma5 ..............................................96
Figure 41: N18 Handling Dummy (18kg) – CRS Group II Ma5 ..............................................96
Figure 42: Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II Ma5......................................................97
Figure 43: Remaining booster width using N25 on Ma5 booster (left and right side).............97
Figure 44: Handling Dummy (150cm) – CRS Group II Ma5...................................................98
Figure 45: Handling Dummy (150cm) – without CRS ............................................................98
Figure 46: Groups of solutions for the groups of problems ..................................................108
Figure 47: medical data from real accident ..........................................................................112
Figure 48: The CRS with the belt adjuster in the real accident ............................................112
Figure 49: Accident scene picture ........................................................................................113
Figure 50: Comparison between abdominal sensors on ......................................................113
8/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 51: Solution's individual scoring ................................................................................114
Figure 52: Procedure for assessing the solutions ................................................................115
Figure 53: Groups of problems v/s groups of solutions........................................................116
Figure 54: Natural distribution of the solutions per group.....................................................116
Figure 55: The "Pequebus" concept.....................................................................................117
Figure 56: The SRI project ...................................................................................................119
Figure 57: solution for aeroplanes........................................................................................120
Figure 58: Child with casts ...................................................................................................122
Figure 59: CPOD principle [Maitre, 2008] ............................................................................127
Figure 60: Presence of safety devices at the seating position .............................................129
Figure 61: Presence of pre-tensioner and load limiter at the seating position .....................130
Figure 62: Pre-tensioner and load limiter per CRS type.......................................................130
Figure 63: Load limiter: distribution by age ..........................................................................131
Figure 64: Reconstruction database: upper belt loads (Q3, Q6)..........................................131
Figure 65: Passenger airbag: distribution by restraint type ..................................................132
Figure 66: Reconstruction Database: Passenger Airbag .....................................................132
Figure 67: Head airbags/ curtain front and rear ...................................................................133
Figure 68: Head airbag: distribution by restraint type...........................................................134
Figure 69: Side airbags: distribution by restraint type ..........................................................134
Figure 70: Curtain stopped by the backrest of the booster ..................................................135
Figure 71: Dummy too small ................................................................................................135
Figure 72: full vehicle side impact test configuration – worst case.......................................136
Figure 73: Full vehicle side impact test configuration – non worst case ..............................136
Figure 74: Market introduction year of the cars in the data sample .....................................138
Figure 75: Seat cushion angle measured with a straight bar ...............................................139
Figure 76: Seat cushion angle observed in today’s cars......................................................139
Figure 77: Angle between seat cushion and backrest in the second seating row................140
Figure 78: Distance between CR-point and roof ..................................................................140
Figure 79: Distance between lower belt anchorages in the rear centre seat .......................141
Figure 80: Availability of ISOFIX anchorages.......................................................................142
Figure 81: Assessed position of ISOFIX anchorages in X direction.....................................143
Figure 82: Assessed ISOFIX angles ....................................................................................144
Figure 83: Assessed distance in Y of the middle plane of the ISOFIX anchorages and the
middle plane of the car seat .................................................................................................144
Figure 84: Assessed position of ISOFIX anchorages in Z direction .....................................145
Figure 85: Assessment of the length of the seat cushion.....................................................145
Figure 86: Assessed distance between ISOFIX anchorages and front end of the seat cushion
(rear seats) ...........................................................................................................................146
Figure 87: Assessed distance to floor ..................................................................................146
Figure 88: Problems with ISOFIX accessibility.....................................................................147
Figure 89: Suitability of universal ISOFIX size classes ........................................................148
Figure 90: Suitability of universal ISOFIX size classes ........................................................148
Figure 91: Assessed distance between inboard ISOFIX anchorage and inboard lower belt
anchorage ............................................................................................................................150
Figure 92: Problems to use ISOFIX and belt at the same time ............................................151
Figure 93: Interference of CRS with car body ......................................................................151
Figure 94: 135 cm booster CRF proposal ............................................................................154
Figure 95: 150 cm booster CRF proposal ............................................................................155
Figure 96: Interference between 135 cm envelope and CRS 4 in 135 cm adjustment ........155
Figure 97: Proposal for third ISOFIX anchorage point .........................................................156
9/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Effects of child restraints in cars on child’s risk of injury as a passenger .................17
Table 2: Effect of Legislation and Campaigns on Seat Belt Wearing Rates ..........................20
Table 3: The regulation in the Netherlands ............................................................................32
Table 4: Percentages of transport of ‘insufficiently protected’ children ..................................35
Table 5: Number of drivers fined for failure to use a child......................................................37
Table 6: Car occupant victims aged 0 to 6 and 7 to 14 (Source: Polish National Police........38
Table 7: Road accidents and their consequences when no child ..........................................38
Table 8: Children using seat belts (Source: National Road Safety Council) ..........................38
Table 9: Euchires campaign surveys results..........................................................................38
Table 10: Children reported killed or seriously injured by .....................................................60
Table 11: Effectiveness of child safety seat laws on various outcomes:...............................63
Table 12: Q-dummies sensors available for reconstructions (P/Q dummies comparison,
Longton, 2011) .......................................................................................................................65
Table 13: Misuse types per CRS group/ type.........................................................................75
Table 14: Addressed misuse per misuse type and CRS group/ type ....................................84
Table 15: Integrated CRS by Manufacturer............................................................................87
Table 16: Dimensions of the Handling Dummies ...................................................................91
Table 17: Integrated CRS – Systems and Observations........................................................99
Table 18: European policies on CRS usage per country .....................................................104
Table 19: Technical solutions' scoring..................................................................................109
Table 20: Innovation solutions' scoring ................................................................................110
Table 21: Accessories and Add-on solutions' scoring ..........................................................111
Table 22: Anti-escape devices solutions' scoring.................................................................114
Table 23: Disabled children solutions' scoring .....................................................................124
Table 24: Selected cars and fitting results of the four CRS..................................................152
Table 25: Excerpt of anthropometric data from GRSP IG CRS draft regulation. .................153
10/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
1 Introduction
As adult restraint systems are not designed for children, Child restraints were
developed to keep children firmly secured in cars and to protect them from injury in
the event of a collision, or even sudden braking.. Child restraints incorporate their
own harnesses, or position the adult seat belt across the shoulder and pelvis to give
equivalent protection.
Appropriate and correct child restraint use increases the safety of children travelling
in cars and child restraint system (CRS) manufacturers continue to develop seats to
offer higher levels of protection. A difficult obstacle is ensuring that child restraints are
actually used by parents and carers, and used correctly.
Families can be targeted through a mix of information campaigns, promotion and
legislation. The details of CRS policy and the levels of enforcement and compliance
vary greatly across the world. Understanding the effects of policy (with an
appreciation of broad cultural differences), may help individual countries to reflect on
and develop their own child road safety strategies.
Research has shown that information campaigns should target both the parents and
the children as the children are having an increasing large input into the CRS
selection. However their input relies less on safety and more on aesthetics. Also the
campaign needs to have a memorable character
CARE data from 2008 shows that 7% of European (EU-23) car passenger fatalities
are children (0 to 13 years old) (Kirk, 2012). This is a significant proportion and it is
likely that at least some of these deaths could have been prevented with correct CRS
use.
A series of studies have provided information that suggests if insurers or medical
organisations subsidise or even pay for underprivileged families to have CRS then
they could save themselves a large amount of money from medical expenses.
Some car manufacturers have started building integrated CRS into their cars, these
systems are usually group 2 or 3 CRS which are booster seats built into the rear
outer seats, some manufacturers also provide side head rests. These integrated
systems allow for the cars safety features to have a greater effect on the child in the
case of an accident.
As our understanding of CRS safety expands the legislation and safety tests that
accompany the systems must also expand this means that legislations change and
new ways to test the systems are implemented. For example the creation of the Q
dummies allows greater biomechanical understanding of a crash. This has brought to
light that some systems that were thought to be safe may in fact cause harm to the
user.
To increase the effectiveness of CRS then it is crucially important that once the child
is using the system the harnesses are at the correct tension and the system is firmly
attached to the car. Parents/Carers may not be aware of the correct tension or the
11/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
correct attachment, for this reason it has been proposed that CRS have visual
indicators and alarms to ensure they are being correctly used.
To further improve the safety features car-to-CRS communication could be
developed this would allow for automatic detection of a CRS for example in the front
passenger seat so deactivation of the airbag. The CRS could also benefit from pretensioners and other safety mechanisms.
12/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
2 Proposal of solutions based on the social study results
2.1 Improving the knowledge of child safety issues by new researches
and methods of data collection
Parents have always played a key role in teaching and developing road safety
awareness in their children as road users and car passengers. It is important to
support them in their role as road safety educators. To improve safety behaviours, it
is very important to understand behaviours.
Thus, future studies should be conducted to go deeper into the comprehension of the
interaction between parents and children in “naturalistic driving”. Observing “real life
roads” could allow to see what travel situations are highly problematical, which
differences exist between what parents say and what they do and how both parents
and children behave in car transportation.
Children particularly form a very mixed age group may change their perceptions of
road safety and risks, adopt different behaviour towards their restraint systems and
become more in charge of their own safety inside the car. Researches focusing on
that point should help to create new strategies to improve attitudes and environments
in cars. More particularly, because children travel a lot by car and their presence is
perceived as a possible cause of car accidents for 65.5% of interviewed parents in
the CASPER survey, it is important to consider the role of the child in the
understanding of child safety issues in cars.
Another important topic is finding new ways to question drivers, these should aim to
reduce the inconvenience of paper and on-line questionnaires and to have a better
data collection. One of the solutions might be the use of tablet computers for future
surveys, creating the database immediately. But if the participants have questions,
they have a human point of contact. If some participants are not familiar with
electronic systems, the interviewer can fill in their answers directly. This can bridge
the gap between online surveys and people without computer skills.
Regarding the methods of data collection, the second solution might be to do the
survey by telephone (for example to use a polling institute in order to do the survey).
The advantage of this method is to have people from different geographical areas
and socio-professional groups in the sample.
In addition, another solution to join the advantages of the two methods could be to
start the electronic surveys using, for example, an internet community like Facebook,
Twitter or LinkedIn. The sample selecting could be done directly by using digital
approaches, with the creation of sub-groups with a defined number of people. When
the sample is created, the electronic survey can start. Forum sections will encourage
the participants to complete questions in the questionnaire but also be involved in
child safety.
Finally, these future researches should include focus groups because it is an
effective method to gather deep data and to understand how people built their reality.
13/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The conduction of focus groups is not widespread enough in the road safety field:
interviewing more parents and children in this way should be a real benefit.
2.2
Giving more information to parents
The main objective was to provide solutions on how to improve parental practices in
terms of child safety and involve them in road safety education.
The findings of the survey showed that parents mostly felt that they didn’t have
access to sufficient information. They particularly claimed, that they didn’t have
enough information from different sources, such as safety campaigns on TV and
radio, up to date leaflets at schools, in hospitals, at paediatricians and above all, they
want more information at the place of purchase for CRS’s (supermarkets, specialized
shops).
Local road safety messages should target parents more directly and take into
account the diversity of issues. Indeed, it is important to make sure that the whole
population is made aware of the main recommendations and the core legislation in
terms of child safety. But mothers do not have exactly the same habits and
perceptions as fathers; people from rural areas do not have the same practices and
representations as people from metropolitan areas: children may be at the higher risk
regarding to their parents’ habits; the skills and the awareness of road risk change
according to the level of education. Consequently, safety campaigns should be
thought to touch the majority of child carers thanks to diverse but simple messages:
any information or materials used in helping parents should be accessible and easy
to understand.
Parents tend to be naïve, underestimate their own ability for misusing their child
restraint systems and think issues come from the other drivers. In other words, they
proclaim the responsibility of parents in the child safety but they do not feel
concerned when thinking about problems. Due to this, educational messages may
not prevent all the inappropriate uses and misuses of car safety seats.
Consequently, training in “real life” situations, tests at the purchase time or
workshops in specific places such as nursery and primary schools including practical
activities could provide benefits to improve road safety awareness and attitudes.
Thus, future research should work on building a pilot program in order to test it on a
small sample of parents. This program could include different topics both theoretical
(legislation, safety recommendations, child restraint systems…) and practical (testing
a child restraint system, role play…). This pilot program could gather parents,
teachers and children to make them interact and to know how they complement each
other. It should then be evaluated to see what works and what does not.
Of course, recommendations on how and where information should be conveyed to
parents, teachers and the other child carers are not enough without a reflection on
the content of the information. According to the findings of the survey, safety
messages and programs should insist on the following field:

The safety benefits associated with the use of the child restraint systems.
More particularly, safety campaigns should pay particular attention to the
14/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal




2.3
safety benefits of booster seat and booster cushion. It is important to assign a
“positive picture/value” to the booster cushion (seat with no backrest) because
there is still a misconception that children are too big for it, it does not seem
steady enough and the increasing of the child’s age is an important factor for
the use of the seat belt only.
The risk of injury and fatality when children travel only with the seat belt.
The necessity to keep babies in a rearward facing seat until 9 kg and as long
as possible. The study showed that 45% of the 0 to 8 kg babies are in a
forward facing system. There is a lack of knowledge among parents
concerning when to put a baby in a forward facing position: parents do not
really know the benefits of the rearward facing position and may think it is not
comfortable for the child. But as said previously, the legislation is going to
change very soon. It will be compulsory to keep children in a rearward facing
position until the age of 15 months. The information should be up to date.
The necessity to deactivate the airbag when there is a child seat at the front.
Indeed, the survey showed that only one on two parents knew that the airbag
should be deactivated when a rearward facing infant seat was placed at the
front.
The easiness of the ISOFIX use and its safety benefits. Only 40% of
interviewed parents knew ISOFIX and parents see the car and the child
restraint system separately. Car dealers and specialized shops do not give
enough information on it according to parents’ opinion.
Developing risk awareness among children
Children are pedestrians, car passengers, riders and almost inevitably they will be
drivers one day. It is necessary to instil into them an awareness of risks and proper
behaviour on roads and inside the car during trips. In other words, because a part of
the misuses probably comes from children’s attitudes, educational strategies should
focus on how to improve their behaviour when travelling in the car thanks to specific
road safety messages. Different suggestions can be made to develop an awareness
of road safety in children such as games and educational videos/animated films at
schools but also video games to make the use of child restrain system more
attractive and funny. More particularly, strategies should take into account the
difference of attitudes among the different groups of age. Indeed, as shown in the
survey, older children are more likely to travel without any seat belt. Thus, specific
messages should target on the necessity of a booster cushion for these children.
Furthermore, children are very susceptible to parents and peer pressure. Educational
programs at schools, including the participation of parents, teachers and other
children could improve the knowledge and awareness of road safety during car
travels.
A special day of prevention during the school year could be a good initiative to
involve children and to give them a “positive” picture regarding road safety as car
passenger.
Finally, the chest clip is used in countries such as United-States. It would be
interesting to see if it provides benefits on children’s behaviour and safety.
15/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
2.4 Specialized shops and supermarkets: helping parents in the
selection of the child restraint system
As the results of CASPER showed, there are still issues in the selection of child
restraint systems but issues vary according to the type of shop.
In specialized shops, sellers seem to provide good information but they are not
always available and parents want to test the product or see a video demonstration.
In supermarkets, there is no information at all, according to parents’ views. They feel
completely alone at the time of choice.
Consequently, video-demonstrations on TV or a screen placed in the shops and
supermarkets could help parents to select the best seat. The video-demonstration
could show how the system works, how to fix it to the car and in which position it
should be placed.
An application on a computer screen could ask parents the age, the weight and the
height of the child and, from the responses, it could show all the systems which may
suit to the child’s morphology and follow the legislation.
16/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
3 Background points to child in-car transport safety policies
3.1
Effectiveness of child restraints
The purpose of child restraint systems is as the name suggests to restrain children,
specifically while travelling in cars. Ensuring that the child is firmly secured in an
appropriate CRS greatly decreases the risk of injury in the event of an accident or
during erratic driving. Using a cars seat belt to secure a child could without a CRS
could cause multiple problems in the event of an accident as car seatbelts aren’t
designed to be used for children. For example if the child isn’t at the correct height
the seatbelt might be positioned across the Childs throat instead of shoulders and
pelvis, this could cause severe damage in the event of a crash. CRS either reposition
the seatbelt to allow for equivalent support for the child or incorporate there own
harnesses.
The FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society (2009) summarised work on CRS
effectiveness (previously published by Elvik & Vaa, 2004) in the table below.
Table 1: Effects of child restraints in cars on child’s risk of injury as a passenger
Percentage change in risk of injury
Type of restraint used
Best estimate
95% CI
Restraining children aged 0-4 years in
forward-facing child restraint
-50%
(-70; -30)
Restraining children aged 0-4 years in a
rear-facing child restraint
-80%
(-90; -70)
Restraining children aged 0-4 years with a
seat-belt only
-32%
(-35; -29)
Restraining children aged 5-9 years in
appropriate child-restraint with seatbelt
-52%
(-69; -27)
Restraining children aged 5-9 years using
seat belt only
-19%
(-29; -7)
Source: FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society (2009), Table 1.3, p15
The review by Elvik & Vaa (2004) suggested that children who sit in the rear without
child restraints have around 25% lower risk of being injured than children who sit in
the front without restraints. Where restraints are used in both seating positions the
risk in the rear is around 15% lower than in the front.
According to this research, it is estimated that children under 4 years have a 50%
lower risk of injury in a forward-facing child restraint and 80% lower in a rear-facing
CRS. By comparison, injury reduction is around 32% when an adult seat-belt is worn.
Children aged 5-9 years have approximately a 52% lower risk of injury in a forwardfacing child seat (similar to younger children), with injury reduction of just 19% with
an adult seatbelt alone. Injury reduction from seatbelts increases to around 46% for
older children (10-14 years).
17/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
However the assumption that CRS use has a significant impact on injury outcomes is
not unchallenged. Dubner & Levitt (2005) writing in the New York Times proposed
that child restraints may not be the best solution, especially considering the
complexity and subsequent levels of misuse encountered. They suggest that more
should be done to improve the fitting of standard seatbelts for children over 2 years
old, and suggest that similar injury reduction trends in the American FARS data may
be actually attributed to greater use of seatbelts. (See also Rice & Anderson, 2009).
This view is controversial, although levels of CRS misuse are well documented and
have a large effect on performance measures. Moves to simplify CRS use should
increase their effectiveness by reducing misuse. The development of ISOFIX and
the new regulation both contribute to standardisation and with the latter a move
towards more consumer friendly CRS grouping, to combat premature graduation.
Early work into the use of height indicators has shown positive results in enabling
adults to make the right seat choice (Brown & Fell et al., 2010).
3.2
Liability
Liability can be considered in terms of two main issues:


Who is liable to ensure that children are appropriately restrained?
Who is liable to ensure that child restraints are safe?
Generally, liability for proper use of an appropriate restraint rests with the driver.
Enforcement varies but usually consists of a combination of fines and licence points.
However, it can be difficult for a police officer to determine whether a restraint is
appropriate and correctly fitted, unless they have undergone extensive training. It
may also not be clear to the untrained eye whether a seat has been previously
involved in a collision, whether it meets current standards and how old it is (i.e.
whether it is past its recommended expiry date).
If a child is injured while not appropriately restrained then any associated insurance
claim is likely to be deemed invalid. It is unclear to what extent parents in Europe
may be subject to prosecution in cases where improperly restrained (or even
unrestrained) children are killed or seriously injured, with compassion being cited as
a reason not to prosecute – except where dangerous driving is indicated. However
case examples of prosecution are available in the United States
(www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/ChildrenAndCars/ChildrenandCarsLo.pdf - pages 4-5).
Liability for safety is more complex. All restraints must meet with standards set out in
safety regulations but in the United States there have been cases where
manufacturers have been challenged over the safety of seats that meet all legal
criteria. There are numerous lawyers in the US who advertise as specialists in child
restraint defects, and also producing emotive literature (for example, Moch & Borja,
1993).
Huber & Litan (1991) write about child restraints in their book, ‘The Liability Maze’
stating that, ‘In the emotionally charged atmosphere of the courtroom, nothing is as
compelling as a seriously injured child, and the size of awards made against childseat manufacturers reflects this characteristic of the U.S. legal system’. They
18/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
suggest that this exposure to risk has forced some CRS manufacturers to effectively
withdraw from the market and has also discouraged car manufacturers from
developing integrated restraint systems.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (NHTSA) provides a comprehensive list
of recalled child restraints in the USA:
www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/childseat.cfm and this data is also
collated on other US sites such as www.carseat.org/Recalls/179NP.pdf. Similar
information is publicly available in Canada: www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/safedriverschildsafety-notices-menu-907.htm
No equivalent European advice lists were found. In the UK, consumer group Which?
maintain a list of child seat ‘Don’t Buys’: www.which.co.uk/baby-and-child/babytransport/reviews/child-car-seats/dont-buy/about/. They indicate that these are seats
which may not be as safe as others. But a payment subscription is required for
public access. Their results are from independent tests based on their own criteria.
3.3
Types of Intervention
A range of interventions can be used to encourage appropriate use of child restraint
systems, including legislative, educational and promotional measures.
Introduction of legislation
Child restraint use can be mandated at both National and European levels – but for
legislation to be effective it must be clearly communicated to those it affects and
adequately enforced.
Primary enforcement of legislation
Drivers can be stopped, cited and fined for failing to use an appropriate child restraint
– but this requires sufficient police resources with trained personnel. Enforcement
may be quite limited and targeted with high profile events.
Information/education campaigns
Campaigns targeting key information about child restraint use to specific groups can
have dramatic effects. These may be community wide, age specific or defined by
any other demographic. Campaigns can use a mix of mass media, printed
information, online resources, public displays and demonstrations and practical
events such as car seat fitting checks – with the response to misuse being advice
rather than legal penalties.
CRS distribution/discounting
A different type of campaign provides free or cheap CRS to certain groups. This may
be through a free loan scheme, a low-cost rental scheme, discount coupons, or a
CRS gifting scheme. Where parents struggle to afford seats or do not appreciate the
19/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
safety benefits, substantially reducing the costs, alongside education, can increase
usage.
Incentive schemes
Usually within a broader educational campaign, incentive schemes offer rewards to
parents and children for independently observed correct CRS use. These can have
positive results in the short-term but further evidence is required of long term
behaviour change.
Overall it is most effective to use a combination of these interventions rather than any
one intervention in isolation.
3.4
Lessons from Seat Belt Usage
With regards to seat belt wearing, the FIA good practice manual on seat belts and
child restraints (2009) states, “Although legislation is essential, it will not achieve high
wearing rates unless it is part of a comprehensive programme of legislation,
enforcement, publicity, incentives and encouragement” (page 19). The same of
applies to correct CRS use.
For seat belt usage, there is a longer history of publicity, legislation and enforcement,
and the effects are clear to see. Table 2 illustrates the change across Europe in
seatbelt wearing since extensive legislation and campaigns have been introduced.
Table 2: Effect of Legislation and Campaigns on Seat Belt Wearing Rates
Country
Wearing rates (%) prior to
legislation and campaigns
Wearing rates (%) after
legislation and campaigns
Australia
25%
95%*
Austria
30%
70%
Costa Rica
24%
82%
Croatia
50%
80%
Czech Republic
30%
60%
Denmark
5%
94%
Finland
40%
93%
India
0.5%
50%*
Japan
37%
84%
Netherlands
15%
86%
Norway
10%
94%
South Africa
33%
81%*
20/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Spain
25%
86%
Sweden
20%
90%
United Kingdom
25%
91%
*Differs between
states
Source: adapted from Table 1.5, “Increases in front seat-belt wearing rates in
selected countries after the implementation of legislation and campaigns”, Seat Belts
& Child Restraints, FIA good practice manual, p21.
Figure 1 below shows the evolution of seatbelt legislation, enforcement and
campaigns and the associated wearing rates. It demonstrates that the effect of
legislation may ‘wear off’ unless there is clear enforcement and awareness raising
activities.
Figure 1: Use of seat-belts by car drivers/front seat passenger in urban and non-urban areas of
Finland, 1966-1995
Source: Seat Belts & Child Restraints, FIA good practice manual, Figure 1.2
Of course, increasing correct CRS usage is inherently more complex than increasing
seatbelt usage, as they are not pre-installed into vehicles, but must be chosen,
purchased and fitted by individual consumers. There are issues of cost, attitude and
safety awareness that may affect compliance. It must be considered that most
parents and carers are not child safety experts, but may be faced with quite detailed
and complex legislation and a vast array of choice in child restraint systems.
Understanding both how to stay within the law and what will be the safest option for
their child is not necessarily an easy task. Added to this, not all CRS are compatible
with all positions in all cars, and options such as ISOFIX rely on having specific
vehicle features. However it has been demonstrated with seat belts that safety
behaviours can become social norms and that legislation is a key part of this process.
21/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4 Overview of current European child in-car transport safety
policies
4.1
Pan European regulations
The European Union has been given the power by the Member States to take
initiatives that promote and protect public health. The EU is able to take a
coordinating role by setting out provisions in European law. Member States are free
to regulate when the European Union does not and to exceed any European
regulations currently in force (although in the case of product regulations, Member
States must justify stricter standards that may affect trade with others).
Each country will set its own national safety standards, but it is recommended (and
often mandated) that these are based on United Nations Economic Committee for
Europe (UNECE) regulations.
4.2
Availability of Local Policy Information
This subsection outlines some of the main resources available for comparing national
CRS policies.
4.3
Eurosafe data (European child safety alliance)
In 2009, Eurosafe collected data from 26 European countries on their child safety
policies in relation to transport. All of them had a national law requiring the use of
appropriate child and adolescent passenger restraints, although for two countries it
was noted that this was only partly implemented.
(www.childsafetyeurope.org/reportcards/downloads.html)
For a complete overview of the Eurosafe report card data see Appendix A1.
4.4
WHO data
The World Health Organization (WHO) has a Road Safety Legislation database
which brings together data collected from WHO partner organizations around the
world. The information covers legislation on a number of risk factors for injury in road
accidents, including seat belt and child restraint use:
http://apps.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/roadsafety/roadsafety.aspx
The initial data gathering process was completed through 2004-2005 and the website
indicates that further data is still required. Looking at all seatbelt and child restraint
data for all countries there is a lot of missing information and no further data has
been gathered since 2005.
22/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
For seatbelts there are detailed questions about requirements to have belts fitted for
different seating positions in different vehicle types (car, commercial vehicles and
various types of bus/coach), and whether in each case wearing is mandatory. There
are questions on the type of legislation, exemptions and penalties/enforcement.
Taking the UK as an example, the only positive responses are regarding seatbelt
fitting and mandatory wearing in passenger cars (4/27 questions).
For child restraints again there are questions on legislation across different vehicle
types (cars, buses, taxis) and seating positions with additional questions on age (but
not size) and restraint type.
As with seatbelts, there are questions on the type of legislation, exemptions,
penalties & enforcement, but also the level of compliance. Again taking the UK as an
example, where there is a lot of public information available on seatbelt and child
restraint law, there are no positive responses (0/13 questions).
The WHO 2009 Global Status Report on Road Safety includes in its indicators the
presence and enforcement of child restraint laws.
Figure 2: WHO data on the presence of child restraint laws across the world
Source:
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/key_data/kd_3_cr.pdf
On the map, green represents national child restraint laws, blue - sub national laws
(which may not cover the whole region), red - no law and grey - no data. The results
indicated that across the world, less than half of all countries have a law requiring the
use of child restraints for young children in vehicles, but this rises to 90% among high
income countries, down to as low as 20% among low-income countries.
An overview of the WHO data on seat-belt and child restraint laws, enforcement and
wearing rates by country/area is available online:
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/data/table_a4.pdf
In addition to detailed road safety profiles by country:
23/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/country_profiles/en/inde
x.html
4.5
Rospa / AA/ RAC Information
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Automobile Association and
Royal Automotive Club in the UK have a dedicated WebPages that address law and
child seat use for other countries around the world. There are advisory notes to
indicate that individuals should personally check that international information is
accurate and up to date before relying upon it for cross-border travel.
www.childcarseats.org.uk/countries/index.htm
www.rac.co.uk/driving-abroad/
4.6
CLEOPATRA Database
This database was produced as one of the deliverables from the Police Enforcement
Programs and Projects on European Roads (PEPPER) project (2006-2008) and it is
hosted on the TISPOL website. CLEOPATRA stands for Collection of Law
Enforcement Operations and Police Activities to Reduce Traffic Accidents. Their
database contains police traffic enforcement information (including details on child
restraint legislation) for Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the
United Kingdom.
CLEOPATRA Database:
https://cleopatra.tispol.org/cleopatra/cleopatra-online-database
Police Enforcement Programs and Projects on European Roads (PEPPER):
www.transport-research.info/web/projects/project_details.cfm?id=16687
4.7 European Commission Data (Directorate-General for Mobility and
Transport)
The European Commission has launched a new smart phone accessible website
providing information on transport legislation for all individual European Member
States as well as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. The information is available in 21
official EU languages and covers speed, alcohol, daytime running lights, winter tyres,
safety equipment for cars and safety equipment for cyclists. Notably however, it does
not currently provide any details on local child restraint law.
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/mobile/index.htm)
The launch of this website was noted in the December 2011 newsletter of the
Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport:
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/news/nl7_en.pdf)
24/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4.8
Child Transport Safety Policies by Country
Child safety experts were contacted (CASPER partners and others known through
other European projects) and asked to respond to the following:



Law: Could you please send us the correct details along with any particular
details, for example, height limit). How long has this law been in force for you?
Enforcement: We’re interested in how your laws on the transport of children
are enforced? (What are the penalties are they regularly used, how is the safe
transport of children monitored?)
Effectiveness: Are there any published studies about whether changes in the
law have been effective – both in terms of injury reduction and increased CRS
use (public acceptance)?
The following sections outline their responses as received (with varied writing styles)
for Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain,
Sweden and the UK. They represent the knowledge and opinions of individuals and
the level of detail varies. The authors are grateful for the information received but the
views reported are not necessarily those of the CASPER project, those who provide
funding to the CASPER project or the authors of this report. Any information should
not be taken as an accurate representation of the law in any particular country or
state. Parents and Carers should always consult information from road safety
organisations in their own country for the most up to date information regarding local
laws.
4.8.1 Belgium
Current Law
The general rule is: one seat for each occupant of a vehicle and children are
considered as normal occupant, so only one child per seat.
Children (under 18 years old) who are less than 1.35m must travel in an adapted
child restraint system. They can travel in the front seat or in the rear if they are
seated in an approved child restraint system. Over 1.35m they have to use child
restraint system or seat belt. (The use of seat belts is compulsory for all vehicle
occupants).
The general rule doesn't apply for taxis and vehicles transporting more than 8
passengers (over 9 seats). For these vehicles the use of seat belts is compulsory for
all vehicle occupants and children (less than 1.35 m) have to travel in the rear seats.
In some cases, if it's impossible to install a third CRS on the rear because 2 other
CRS are already installed, a third child (3 years or more and less than 1.35 m) can
still travel in the rear and a seat belt must be worn.
25/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In occasional cases, and for a short distance, for children transported who are not
those of the driver: if no CRS is available in the vehicle or not enough for all children
transported, children over 3 years old can still travel in the rear. They must wear the
seat belts. This exception is not valid for children of the driver of the vehicle, for
whom the general rule applies.
Enforcement
The penalty is 50€.
Effectiveness
No study was conducted about whether changes in the law have been effective.
Further Information
See also IBSR flyer (in French):
www.ibsr-bivv.be/dispatch.wcs?uri=881852579&action=viewStream&language=fr
4.8.2 France
Current Law
Children seated in the front seat must be seated in a child restraint appropriate to
their weight and age. Children are prohibited from travelling in the front seat until they
are aged 10 years old unless:
They (a very young child) are installed in an approved rearward facing CRS and that
the seating position is not equipped with an active airbag.
There is no other available seating position in the car (light commercial vehicles,
passenger car with rear bench that is bent, or more children than the number of
seating positions available in rear seats)
Children under 10 years of age must be seated in the rear and use a seatbelt or an
approved child seat. All vehicle occupants must wear a seatbelt.
Enforcement
No information provided
Effectiveness
No information. [A French study from 2006 (Javouhey & Guérin et al.) indicated
issues with low enforcement and high misuse, although the data were from 19962002 - before the more robust CRS laws were introduced.]
26/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4.8.3 Germany
Current Law
In general the rule for not being allowed to use the front seat was stopped with the
compulsory use of CRS. Now every seating position is allowed except the car
manufacturer does not allow specific seating positions (e.g., rear centre).
Children need to travel in an appropriate ECE R44 03 or 04 homologated CRS up to
an age of (not including) 12 years or a stature of 150 cm whatever comes first.
For taxis there is the requirement to have available two CRS.
Enforcement
From our experience there is little real enforcement. In general the fee for
unrestrained children is 40 Euro and one point in the German register. More than 1
unrestrained child is 50 Euro. For children being incorrectly restrained (for example,
seatbelt instead of CRS or ECE R44 02) the penalty is 30 Euro.
Effectiveness
No information provided
4.8.4 Greece
Current Law
The current law is outlined in the Greek Road Code – 2009 (2nd edition). Article 12
(General regulations) states that when child occupants are transported, any escort in
the vehicle is responsible for their safety. For the transportation of children in cars,
the use of special restraint and protection systems like child seats, safety belts, etc. is
obligatory. The specifications for these special restraint systems, as well as any
exceptions from this obligation, are defined by a Ministerial Decision of the Ministry of
Transport and Communication. (See below)
Article 33 (Transportation of passengers with vehicles) states that the transportation
of vehicle passengers in a dangerous way is prohibited. More specifically the
following are prohibited:
Transportation of more passengers than those allowed according to the vehicle
circulation license.
The occupancy of a seat on the side of the driver by children aged younger than
twelve (12) years old, if they are not restrained by a certified child restraint system,
appropriate for their age, height and weight, as well as by more persons than those
allowed in this position.
The transportation of children younger than five (5) years old by a motorcycle or
moped, if they are not restrained by a certified child restraint system, appropriate for
their age, height and weight.
27/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Ministerial Decision of the Ministry of Transport and Communication (nr.
43917/5066/04.10.2006)
Definitions of restraint systems, including seat-belts and children restraint systems for
vehicles of M1 and N1 category are those included in Appendix I of Directive
77/541/ΕEC, as modified by the Directive 2000/3/ΕC:
1. Vehicles of the Μ1, Ν1, Ν2 and Ν3 Groups:
a)
i) For the vehicles of the categories Μ1, Ν1, Ν2 and Ν3, it is obligatory for all
occupants to use the restraint systems. Children of a height less than 150 cm
in vehicles of category Μ1, Ν1, Ν2 and Ν3, equipped with safety systems,
should be restrained by a “complete type” or a “non-complete” restraint
system, adjusted to the weight of the child according to the above article 1
paragraph 3.
In the vehicles of category Μ1, Ν1, Ν2 and Ν3 that are not equipped with
safety systems:
Children younger than 3 years old are not allowed to travel,
Children above 3 years old and below 150 cm height, subject to the
next point II, should be seated on a rear seat.
ii) Children of a height below 150 cm but at least 135 cm are allowed to be
retained by a seat-belt for adults.
iii) Children referred in points i) ii), are allowed not to be retained by a child
restraint system when they travel in a taxi. However, when these children are
in a taxi that is not equipped with a restraint system, they should be seated on
rear seats.
b) Children should not use a restraint system facing to the rear while on a passenger
seat protected by a front airbag, unless the airbag is deactivated in advance or can
be automatically deactivated in a sufficient way.
c) Any child restraint system used should comply with the specifications set by the
Regulation 44/03 of the UN or the Directive 77/541/ΕC or any of their amendments
that took place at a later stage.
d) By 9th May 2008, it is allowed to use children restraint systems according to the
29854/2329/22.10.1997 (Β' 943) Decision of the Minister of Transportation and
Communication.
2. Vehicles of the M2 and M3 Groups:
For the vehicles of the Μ2 and Μ3 groups, it is obligatory for all passengers
over 3 years old to use, when seated, the restraint systems of the vehicles.
28/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The children restraint systems are validated according to the previous
paragraph 1 (c) and (d).
The passengers of vehicles of the Μ2 and Μ3 groups should be informed that
it is obligatory to use restraint systems when seated and the vehicle is on
move. They should be accordingly informed in one of the following ways:




by the driver
by the person seated next to the driver or the person nominated as the
leader of the team
by audiovisual means (i.e. video)
by appropriate signs or pictures, placed in every seat
Enforcement
If drivers violate the regulations outlined from the Greek Road Code they can be
punished by an administrative penalty of eighty (80,00) Euros. For improper
transportation of passengers and children on motorcycles/mopeds they can also get
7 points on their licence and for lack of special restraint systems for children they can
get 5 points.
Effectiveness
Regarding the effectiveness of the law, there are no published studies about whether
changes in the law have been effective.
Information from the Police indicates that in 2009, 933 violations were recorded
regarding not-using child restraint systems and in 2010 the respective number was
620 violations, comparing to the respective seat-belts usage enforcement (recorded
violations 77,274 in 2009 and 49,703 in 2010).
[Tsoumakas & Mavridi et al. (2008) conducted an anonymous survey of 1,000
parents in Greece. 88.4% reported always placing children in the back seat (10.3%
sometimes, 1.2% never); 76.1% reported always using an age appropriate restraint
(12.3% sometimes, 11.6% never)]
Further Information
See the latest edition of the Greek Road Code (as well as a relevant Ministerial
Decision), covering this issue from the legislative point of view.
4.8.5 Italy
In Italy laws and regulations about child car seats and child protection in cars comply
with EU-wide directives. In detail, child protection in cars is included in the law and
relative regulations for driving on the road. This law is called the “Road Code” and is
periodically updated according to EU directives. The last version was published in
July 2010.
Current Law
29/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In Italy child protection in cars is included in the laws about driving on the road (car,
road signals, driver, etc,) that all drivers have to respect. All driving prescriptions are
grouped in a national law, called the “Road Code” (“Codice della strada”), which is
generally updated every 5-6 years. The last version was published in 2010 and the
previous version was published in 2003.
According to the current law, all children with a height less than 1.50 metres must
have a CRS. The CRS has to be adequate for the child’s weight and has to be
homologated according to EU standards.
At the moment it isn’t clear if a child can stay on the front passenger seat. Before, in
a previous version of the Code (from 1980), it was clearly written that children until 10
years old had to be seated on the rear seats. In the latest versions (version 2003 and
version 2010) this topic was omitted.
Children under 12 years are allowed to travel in the front seat if special child
restraints are installed.
They cannot be placed in the front seat with their back to the direction of travel if the
vehicle is fitted with a passenger airbag, unless it is deactivated.
If there aren't in the car the restraint systems (for old car), it is forbidden to carry
children under 3 years, while children with age above 3 years and height lower 1.5
meters cannot sit in the front seats.
It is forbidden to carry children in trucks or vans. When a child is in a taxi or in a
rental car with a driver, they can be seated on the rear seat if accompanied by
another passenger aged over 16 years, also without a CRS. In buses, children under
3 years can be transported without a CRS. Children aged between 4 and 12 years
and with a weight lower than 36 kg have to use restraint systems with which the bus
is equipped.
The use of seat belts is compulsory for all vehicle occupants.
Enforcement
The driver is responsible for all children they carry in cars. If the children aren’t
correctly restrained, the driver has to pay a penalty between 74 and 300 euro, and he
loses 5 point of his driving licence (In Italy, since 2003, drivers have a license with 20
points; when you lose all points you have to repeat the driving exams). If the driver
makes the same mistake twice in two years his driver's licence is suspended for a
time between 15 days to 2 months.
Police are in charge of ensuring the respect of the “Road code" by drivers. Child
safety is included in the control that they carry out. In Northern Italy the controls are
continuous, in Central and Southern Italy the controls are less.
Effectiveness
At the moment there aren’t studies about the effect of the controls; although there
have been several workshops and discussions.
30/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4.8.6 The Netherlands
Current Law
The Netherlands follows the EU 2006 legislation. The following information is taken
from the SWOV Factsheet ‘Seat belts and child restraint seats’ (last revised
December 2010):
www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Seatbelts.pdf.
Since January 1, 2004 the Seat Distribution Regulation has been implemented in the
Netherlands under the 2002 Passenger Transport Act. This act regulates the
compulsory usage for children in taxis and (non-public) buses or mini-vans.
The following information about Dutch and EU legislation is taken from the Cleopatra
Database (Child restraint systems - Accessed August 29th 2011):
www.tispol.org/cleopatra/netherlands/seatbelts/legislation/child-restraintsystems/child-restraint-systems
Since March 1, 2006 new regulations for child restraint systems are introduced in the
Netherlands. This is a consequence of the European recommendation on child
restraint systems. The regulation in the Netherlands can be summarised in the
scheme, shown in Table 3.
31/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 3: The regulation in the Netherlands
Child restraint systems
Kind of passengers Seatbelts present in motor vehicle
Front
seat
Back
seat
No seatbelts present
in motor vehicle
Transport allowed
without seatbelt
No transport allowed
Length: > 1,35 m
Use seatbelt mandatory
Age: < 18 years
Length: < 1,35 m
Use children restraint system
Age: < 18 years
Length: < 1,35 m
No transport allowed in the front No transport allowed
Age: < 18 years
seat of the vehicle
in the front seat of this
No child restraint
vehicle
system available
Length: > 1,35 m Use seatbelt mandatory (Transport Transport allowed
Age: > 3 years
of more persons than the available without seatbelt or
number of seatbelt is allowed till child restraint system
May 1, 2008)
Length: < 1,35 m
Use children restraint system
Transport allowed
Age: < 18 years
without seatbelt of
child restraint system
Length: < 1,35 m
Seatbelt if already 2 children
Age < 3 years: No
Age: < 3 years
restraint systems are present and transport allowed in
in use on back seat
this motor vehicle.
Exception: Taxi
Additional information, Beveiligingsmiddelen in de auto 2010 - Section 4, (Security
devices in the car 2010), Department of Public Works, Transport and Navigation,
Department of safety - 14 December 2010. On a seat with an airbag with a child in a
car seat against the direction of the traffic any frontal airbag must be turned off. It is
compulsory for seatbelts and child car seats to be used by the manufacturer’s
prescribed manner.
There are exceptions on the rules for the transportation of children in the car:


If in the backseat of the car two child seats are in use and there is no place for
a third. In that case, a remaining child can use the seat belt.
For occasional transport over a limited range of children of others with
sufficient seat belts in rear seats for children to use.
Enforcement
Seatbelt control is an integrated part of traffic surveillance in the Netherlands. The
average amount of time spent on the enforcement of seatbelts by the regional traffic
enforcement teams is about 10-15%, corresponding to approximately 50 hours of
seatbelt enforcement per region each week (Source CLEOPATRA Database,
accessed August 29th 2011:
https://www.tispol.org/cleopatra/netherlands/seatbelts/seatbelts-controlactivities/resources-seatbelt-enforcement/resource).
32/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
If children in cars are not using the required child restraint seat or booster seat, or
larger children required seat belt, the resulting fine is 100 Euro.
Effectiveness
The use of seat belts and child restraint systems in the Netherlands is monitored
every two years by a large scale observational traffic survey. The latest report on the
seat belt use measurement is: Goudappel Coffeng (2010). Beveiligingsmiddelen in
de auto 2010. Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart, Delft. This report with English
summary was sent together with this document - Information from the SWOV
Factsheet ‘Seat belts and child restraint seats’, December 2010.
With the implementation of a number of new traffic rules in 2006 safe transport of
children (with a height of up to 1.35 m) in protection devices has improved
considerably (
33/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 4). In 2006, 28% of the observed children were transported without sufficient
protection; in 2008 this was 12%. Without sufficient protection should be read as,
among others, travelling in a seat without a seat belt or in an unattached carrycot, or
being seated on a passenger’s lap.
34/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 4: Percentages of transport of ‘insufficiently protected’ children
in the period of 2002-2008 (AVV, 2000-2006; DVS, 2007; 2008)
Year
Observed children
Unprotected
Protected
2002
55
45
2004
62
38
2006
28
72
2008
12
88
In 2006 the regulations surrounding the transportation of children changed from less
than 12 years and less than 1.50 m to ‘Younger than 18 and less than 1.35 m'. The
protection of children in the car can be divided into three categories:



Fully compliant with regulations in 2006 (well protected);
Not in accordance with regulations in 2006, but with a belt (not optimal
protected);
Not in accordance with regulations in 2006, without a seatbelt or child
(unprotected).
Since 2006 the number of children without a seatbelt or child restraint is transport fell
from 28% in 2002 and 2004 to 6% in 2008 and 2010.
Figure 3: Percentage of children observed or not in accordance with regulations carried
in accordance with regulations 2002-2010 (Figure S-4 in source) N=355



Fully compliant with 2006 regulations
Not in accordance with regulations in 2006, but with belt
Without a seatbelt or child seat
Further Information
For further information, see:
www.swov.nl/UK/Research/publicaties/inhoud/factsheets.htm
35/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Seatbelts.pdf
AVV (2000-2006). Gebruik van beveiligingsmiddelen in auto's. Directoraat-Generaal
Rijkswaterstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer AVV, Rotterdam.
DVS (2007). Gebruik van beveiligingsmiddelen in auto's 2007; Eindrapport.
Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart DVS,
Rotterdam.
DVS (2008). Beveiligingsmiddelen in de auto 2008.
Rijkswaterstaat, Dienst Verkeer en Scheepvaart DVS, Delft.
Directoraat-Generaal
4.8.7 Poland
Current Law
Legal regulations about transportation of children in cars. The problem of children
travelling in cars was first covered in the road traffic law in 1991. A waiver was
introduced saying that children up to 10 did not have to have seatbelts fastened.
In 1997, The Road Traffic Law was modified to read “Where seatbelts cannot be
used directly due to the weight or height of a child, children shall be carried in cars
equipped with seatbelts in a child protective seat or a different type of technically
compliant child restraint”.
That same year a new regulation was introduced under which the above regulation
did not apply in taxi cabs, ambulances or police cars.
In 1997 a ban was introduced:


To carry a child in a rear-facing child seat in the front, which is protected by an
active frontal airbag;
To carry a child up to 10 years old in the front seat of a motor car if not seated
in a protective child seat.
The law as it is today was revised in 2002. It says that:
If a motor car is equipped with seat belts, a child up to 12 years old and not taller
than 150 cm shall be carried in a protective child seat or another child restraint
appropriate for the child’s weight and height and complying with the relevant
technical requirements (Article 39.3. Road Traffic Law).
Drivers may not (Article 45, 2 Road Traffic Law): (...)

Carry a child in a rear-facing child seat in the front, which is protected by an
active frontal airbag
36/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal

Carry a child up to 12 years old in the front seat of a motor car if not seated in
a protective child seat.
The Polish Highway Code has little information in its handling of child seats.
Fortunately, there are several interesting websites (http://fotelik.info) for sharing
knowledge about child restraints. Child seat manufacturers have their websites too.
However, they are only available in Polish. To find these sites, simply search in
Google these words: “fotelik samochodowy dla dzieci” (child seats).
Commercially available seats must be ECE R44-03 or ECE R44-04 certified but
some people claim that this is no guarantee for child safety. Hence, the internet sites
also carry information about the results of child seat tests such as ADAC, OEAMTC,
AA and ANWB from 2001-2011.
Enforcement
If caught carrying a child without a child seat the fine is PLN150 (~38 euro) and 3
demerit points.
There is very little statistics on this because the points are removed if the driver does
not violate the traffic law for 2 years.
Table 5: Number of drivers fined for failure to use a child
seat (Source: Polish National Police)
Number of
drivers fined
for failure to
use a child
seat
2007
2008
2009
2010
First 6 months
of 2011
1596 *
2426 *
5833
7214
4220
*Data for 2007 and 2008 may be underestimated because after 2 years the record is
removed from the system if the driver has not committed other traffic offence.
In Poland some 18 million people have driving license B. A recent SARTRE 4 study
showed that about 56% people say they carry children in their cars. Of course not all
of them are up to 12 years old.
Effectiveness
As far as known there have not been any major reports in Poland on the
effectiveness of the Polish regulations. Regarding accident statistics Table 6 shows
car occupant victims aged 0 to 6 and 7 to 14 years old (Source: Polish National
Police) with the upper number those killed and the lower number injured.
37/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 6: Car occupant victims aged 0 to 6 and 7 to 14 (Source: Polish National Police
Age (years old)
0-6
7 - 14
2008
34
1012
47
1579
2009
24
905
36
1414
2010
28
893
32
1222
Table 7 shows road accidents and their consequences when no child restraint was
used (Source: Polish National Police):
Table 7: Road accidents and their consequences when no child
restraint was used (Source: Polish National Police)
Age
Accidents
Killed
Injured
2007 2008 2009 2010
27
24
14
16
3
3
0
3
27
24
29
20
Regarding road traffic behaviour between 2002 and 2007 the National Road Safety
Council conducted a study in Poland to check speed and seat belt usage. The
reports were first published in 2003 giving information about children without saying
whether the child was using a restraint or seat belt.
Table 8: Children using seat belts (Source: National Road Safety Council)
Age
% of children using
seat belts
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
74.7%
72.1%
76.3%
82.2%
83.9%
Regarding public opinion surveys between 2005 and 2007 the Euchires campaign
was conducted in Poland. It was a European project based on the Dutch Armadillo
campaign. During the campaign surveys were conducted. When asked about how
they carried children aged 4-12, those were the answers:
Table 9: Euchires campaign surveys results
Use of child
restraint
system
Always
correctly
Before
campaign
After 2005
campaign
After 2006
campaign
After 2007
campaign
53%
50%
69%
83%
Towards the end of 2010 Poland conducted the SARTRE 4 survey. When asked
“How often do you use seat belts or other restraints (child seats, half seats) when
carrying children on different types of roads” the following is the number of people
answering “Always”:




on motorways:
on main roads between cities:
on other rural roads:
in cities:
92.1%
92.1%
90.6%
91.1%
38/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4.8.8 Spain
Current Law
The European regulations ECE R44/04 and ECE R44/03 are valid throughout the
European Union and therefore for Spain. In Spain it is not mandatory for children
whose height is less than 135 cm to use approved restraint devices when travelling
by taxi, but they must always occupy a seat other than the front and only when the
journey is in cities or large urban areas.
Spanish legislation on transportation of minors and the use of different child safety
devices is not very extensive, although in March 2003, Parliament adopted a directive
requiring that children who are less than1.50 metres travelling by car with seat or
safety device approved. In this way children can only travel in the car with special
seats, sitting on cushions, or systems to regulate the height of the belt.
Enforcement
These provisions are mandatory, under penalty of fines and loss of points in the
driver's license.
Effectiveness
No information available
4.8.9 Sweden
Current Law
Children shorter than 135 cm must use an approved child restraint. Children are
permitted to travel in the front seat but it is illegal to carry a child in a rear-facing child
restraint in the front seat, if protected by an active frontal airbag.
The child restraint must be suitable for the user, installed according to the instructions
of the restraint and used in the way intended. Child restraints must conform to the
ECE Directive 77/541/EEG (2000/3/EG) or the United Nations ECE Regulation
R44.03 or later standard. Child restraints that conform to a Swedish Standard or to
an earlier version of R44, could be used until the 9th of May 2008.
The driver must ensure that children younger than 15 are restrained correctly in
accordance with the law. If the child is 15 or older it is the responsibility of the child
to wear the seat belt.
Seat belts are mandatory for all passengers, if available.
39/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
4.8.10 UK
Current Law
The current CRS law was introduced in 2006. For children under 14, it is the driver's
legal responsibility to ensure that the child is correctly restrained. Once passengers
are over 14 years, it is their own legal responsibility to ensure they are wearing a seat
belt if available.
The law requires all children travelling in cars to use the correct child restraint until
they are either 135 cm in height or the age of 12 (which ever they reach first). After
this they must use an adult seat belt. There are very few exceptions, and the main
ones are set out below.
Children up to 3 years old must use the correct child restraint. It is illegal to carry a
child in a rear-facing CRS in the front if there is an active frontal airbag. In a licensed
taxi or licensed hire car, if a child restraint is not available then the child may travel
unrestrained in the rear. This is the only exception for children under 3, and has been
introduced for practical rather than safety reasons.
There are three exceptions where there is not a child seat available. In each case the
child must use the adult belt instead. They are - 1) in a licensed taxi or private hire
vehicle; 2) if the child is travelling on a short distance for reason of unexpected
necessity; 3) if there are two occupied child restraints in the rear which prevent the
fitment of a third. In addition, a child 3 and over may travel unrestrained in the rear
seat of a vehicle if seat belts are not available.
Children over 1.35 metres in height, or who are 12 or 13 years old are still the
responsibility of the driver and must wear a seatbelt in the front or rear of the vehicle,
if available.
Enforcement
The penalty for not using a child restraint is a £30 fixed penalty notice for the driver of
the vehicle. If the case goes to court, the maximum fine is £500.
According to Hayes (2006), early policing of child restraint law was barely visible and
although the law is now stronger, there are challenges in enforcing the detailed
provisions of the law (e.g. measuring height and weight).
Effectiveness
Research was carried out by OnePoll on behalf of Britax in June 2011. This research
used an online survey amongst a panel, with 1,000 respondents, all parents with
children aged under 12. The survey results were that:



20% of parents often let their children travel without sitting in a CRS
25% of parents do not know how to fit their CRS
<50% of parents had their child car seats correctly fitted
40/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal






The most common fitting issues are difficulty in getting the seat to feel sturdy,
being unable to pull the seatbelt round and not knowing where the seatbelt
should go.
50% of parents do not know what ISOFIX is
<40% of parents understand the legal requirements for CRS use
Around a third of parents do not believe that CRS are necessary
Most parents do not buy the best available seat for their child but choose a
cheaper option
Almost a third of parents said they didn’t always have time to secure their
children, and one in ten admitted that they were “too lazy” to do this
consistently:
www.britax-babyonboard.co.uk/2011/06/21/millions-of-parents-flout-car-seat-safetyrules/
Further Information
www.childcarseats.org.uk/law/
4.8.11 Beyond Europe
Child restraint legislation beyond Europe will not be covered in detail as it is beyond
the scope of this report. It is however interesting to note developments in different
parts of the world.
An international map of child restraint legislation was presented in Section 4.4.
According to this resource, not all countries have national CRS laws, some have subnational laws and some (particularly low income countries) have no CRS law at all.
Australia and the USA are both examples of large countries with varied sub-national
laws. For example, in South Australia, detailed child restraint laws were introduced in
July 2010 with enforcement penalties from October 2010. Children under 6 months
must travel in a rear-facing restraint, 6 months to 4 years they can be in rear or
forward facing with inbuilt harness, 4 to 7 years forward facing CRS with harness or
booster with seat belt positioning or child safety harness and 7 years plus in a
booster or an adult seatbelt, as long as the belt fits correctly. Parents are instructed
to use these age brackets as advisory and judge based on height and weight.
It is illegal to use child restraints bought outside of Australia and the current standard
(AS) 1754 replaces weight groups with shoulder height markers. Older restraints are
legal but not recommended.
Current penalty levels are on the spot fines of $305 if one child is unrestrained and
$361 if more than one child is unrestrained (excluding Victim's of Crime Levy) plus up
to 5 demerit points.
By contrast, in Northern Territory Australia the rules are more basic. All drivers and
passengers must wear seatbelts and children under 12 months must be appropriately
restrained. Prior to 2006 there was no child restraint legislation at all, but it has now
been mandated that Northern Territory Australia must adopt stricter CRS laws from
41/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
February 2013 as the Australian Transport Council aims to harmonise laws across
the different regions.
In the USA child passenger safety laws vary across the states. An overview
produced by the Governors Highway Safety Association is copied in Appendix A2.
Many of the laws require children to travel in the rear of the vehicle where possible.
Generally suitable restraint types according to age, weight and height are defined.
First offence fines for not complying range from US$10 to US$500, with some states
also using licence penalty points.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the
Virgin Islands require child safety seats for infants and children fitting specific criteria.
47 states and the District of Columbia require booster seats or other appropriate
devices for children who have outgrown their child safety seats but are still too small
to use an adult seat belt safely. The only states lacking booster seat laws are
Arizona, Florida and South Dakota.
42/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
5 Notable child transport safety campaigns
One of the key challenges in appropriate child restraint use is getting the message
across to families about what they need to do and why. This section outlines a range
of campaigns both within Europe, and beyond. Some of the key features are
highlighted alongside results where they are known.
5.1
EUCHIRES (Armadillo campaign)
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/euchires_2007.pdf
The EUCHIRES project ran from 2005-2008 and the associated Pan-European public
awareness campaign, on the use of seat belts and child restraint systems, was
implemented in 11 countries:












Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Italy
Latvia
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Spain
Figure 4: Armadillo campaign
The campaigns were based on a successful project from the Netherlands that started
in 2003, and used a toy armadillo as a mascot – as the armadillo uses its shell to stay
safe.
The aim was to use a common approach in promoting the use of seat belts and child
restraints, with the main objective being to bring about a permanent change in
behaviour among drivers and their child passengers to reduce the number of
casualties who are injured due to a lack of appropriate restraint.
The target group was children aged 4 to 12 years, and their parents. For children the
campaign was focused on positive messages and empowerment, teaching them how
they could make themselves safer by buckling up correctly. For parents it was about
motivating them to restrain their children correctly, to know which type of restraint
system they needed, to understand how to fit their CRS correctly and to promote a
willingness to spend money to buy and replace child restraints without delay.
43/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 5: Images from the Armadillo campaign in Austria
Source: www.grspasia.org/download10/Barbara%20Krol2.ppt
The campaign was evaluated to explore whether the attitudes and behaviour (with
regards to seat belts and CRS) of the children involved in interactive lessons had
been influenced. In addition, the evaluation considered changes to the attitudes and
behaviour of parents who had received information materials via their children.
90% of children stated that they are always “buckled-up” when travelling in a car,
although this drops to 77% for short car trips. Before the campaign, 69% stated that
they would always remind others to buckle-up, this rose to 87% after taking part in
the interactive lesson.
5.2
Boost’em in the back seat
www.boosterseats4safety.org/
Boost ‘em in the Back Seat is a video campaign from the Eastern Virginia Medical
School in the United States, publicised on a website funded by the Virginia Highway
Safety Office. It is based around a six minute video featuring a dramatization of a
child suffering brain injuries after being restrained only with a seatbelt during a crash
– with the story interspersed with reconstruction videos, scientific and parental
advice. Referred to as a ‘threat advice’ video, this is intended to be a hard hitting
message to encourage increased booster seat use by tackling a number of biases
listed on the website:






Low perceived risk regarding crash injury;
Disbelief in the effectiveness of booster seats versus safety belts;
Poor understanding of the power of crash forces;
Poor confidence in their ability to get their children to use a booster seat;
Situational barriers to the adoption of booster seats (e.g., cost, child conflict);
Confusions contributed by legal loopholes; and the pressures of social
influence stemming from non-use being normative.
It was designed to be shown by professionals (safety advocates, doctors, nurses and
teachers) to parents and other caregivers of children aged 4-8 years. It is noted that it
has been shown as a DVD in healthcare waiting rooms and integrated into closed
cable television within hospitals. It is recommended that it is delivered in captive
audience environments such as this to ensure that people watch it.
44/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Key features of the video design are that it:






Includes images that evoke high emotion;
Uses crash-test footage and computer-generated simulations to portray the
power of crash forces;
Uses case stories;
Avoids jargon and statistics;
Relates specific consequences to non-compliance;
Utilizes well-respected experts to deliver messages.
The program was formally evaluated through a study across four after-school daycare centres (Will, Sabo & Porter, 2009). Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice surveys
were completed by 226 caregivers, 100 of whom watched the video, and safety
behaviour was observed regularly in the car park over a 20 week period. The results
showed that compared to the baseline and control assessments, the child passenger
safety knowledge, risk-reduction attitudes and behavioural intentions related to
booster seat use (and back seat use), increased significantly in the treatment group,
as did the perceived threat related to the hazard and the sense of efficacy related to
the recommended behaviours. The observational data showed a significant increase
in both restraint and booster use at the treatment sites compared to the baseline and
the control. Rear seat use was already high (>90%) and no significant changes were
observed.
5.3
Good Egg
www.goodeggsafety.com/
www.protectchild.co.uk/incar/index.php
Figure 6: Logos for the Good Egg Campaign
Source: www.goodeggsafety.com/
The Good Egg Guide to In-Car Child Safety was piloted and then launched across
Scotland in 2001. It is sponsored by a UK car retailer and Road Safety Scotland and
was a response to the finding that up to 80% of child car seats in Scotland might be
incorrectly fitted. It brought together a large multi-agency partnership which included
The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS), The Royal Society for
the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and Local Authorities throughout Scotland.
45/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The main aims of the campaign are to:



Raise awareness of the dangers of transporting unrestrained or incorrectly
restrained children in cars.
Provide access to the necessary information to help parents and carers to
make safer choices.
Educate retailers and provide opportunities for families to have their child
seats checked at convenient locations throughout Scotland.
The cross-media campaign has included a booklet, high density radio advertising, a
website, bus back advertising, in-store promotional materials and the creation of a
network of Good Egg Car Clinics, where parents and carers can check that their car
seats are correctly fitted.
Further to this, in 2003, the Good Egg Charter was launched – which is awarded to
child seat retailers who meet a set of standards for staff training and quality of advice
on selecting and fitting car seats.
The Dynamic Advertising Group highlighted a list of key successes following the
2009 Good Egg Campaign:






A 65% reduction in child in-car injuries and fatalities in comparison to the ’94 –
’98 average
70 car seat clinics across Scotland in 2009 – covering every Scottish region
More than 1,300 individual child car seat checks, bringing the total to over
9,000 checked throughout Scotland at special Good Egg Car since 2001
51 retailers across Scotland signed up to the ‘Good Egg Charter’
Over 170,000 Scottish ‘Good Egg Guides’ distributed
Over 100,000 visitors to the campaign website www.protectchild.co.uk since
2002
Source: Dynamic Advertising Group – Overview of Scottish Good Egg Campaign:
www.dynamicadgroup.com/userfiles/file/InCar.pdf
5.4
Rear facing: The Way Forward
www.rearfacing.co.uk/
Rearfacing.co.uk is an example of an independent information campaign. It
comprises of a website developed by two parents, one British and one Swedish.
They were motivated by researching car seats on English and Swedish websites and
seeing differences in the information, product availability and recommendations. They
found that research indicated that the safest option was to keep children rear facing
when they move to a Group 1 seat, as recommended in Sweden, but in the UK larger
rear facing seats are much harder to source.
46/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Their website provides links to a range of resources that promote the use of rear
facing child restraints and a forum to encourage interaction. It is hoped that by
providing information they could increase consumer demand for rear facing seats in
the UK, therefore making them easier (and perhaps cheaper) to buy, therefore further
increasing consumer demand. They claim some success, with more retailers’ now
stocking rear facing seats than 3 years ago, although they are still not considered
commonplace in the UK.
5.5
Ollie otter
http://www.seatbeltvolunteer.org/
Figure 7: Banner from the Ollie Otter campaign
Source: www.seatbeltvolunteer.org/ollie-otter-vinyl-banner
Ollie Otter’s Child Booster Seat Safety Program was the first statewide seat belt and
booster seat education campaign in the USA and has been reported on in detail by
Anitsal, Anitsal & Liska (2010). The character, Ollie Otter, is Tennessee’s seat belt
and booster seat mascot and he visits young children to promote the use of booster
seats, to encourage seat belt use and to raise awareness of roadway construction
site safety. The website shows that as of February 2012 there are 1,250 schools
signed up and 367,908 individual children.
There is also an online education program that prepares volunteers to perform as
Ollie Otter, with over 90 volunteers registered.
Anitsal, Anitsal & Liska (2010) reviewed the letters and artwork generated by children
who had attended Ollie Otter led sessions. They report that the character Ollie Otter
is now established as a credible safety advocate among young children and those
children successfully reflected key messages such as the need to use booster seats
and to buckle-up. The analysis of the children’s responses suggested that the
messages were strong and the use of an appealing focal character is very important
to the success of the campaign.
47/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
5.6
Buckle up bear
www.cooperators.ca/en/About-Us/community/signature-safety-programs/car-safetywith-bub.aspx
Figure 8: Logo from the Buckle Up Bears Campaign
Source: www.cooperators.ca/en/About-Us/community/signature-safety-programs/carsafety-with-bub.aspx
In 1999 a partnership was formed between the Co-operators (insurance) and the
Infant and Toddler Safety Association (ITSA) to provide car seat education through
hands-on safety clinics across Canada. A primary aim of these free clinics is to deal
with improper installation / misuse, but also to increase general awareness of car
seat safety. Since Buckle-Up Bears started, over a million growth charts with car seat
safety information have been distributed and over 600 clinics have been held,
inspecting over 10,000 seats.
The partnership has also produced a range of pamphlets and videos available
through the ITSA website, including a step by step video of how to install a range of
car seats (www.infantandtoddlersafety.ca/index.php).
5.7
Who safe communities model
www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/Hispanic%20car%20seats%20FULL%20case%
20study.pdf
An intervention programme based on the WHO Safe Communities model was
implemented within the Hispanic community in Texas. The Safe Communities
approach emphasizes collaboration, partnership and community capacity building:
(http://www.safecommunities.ca/images/Documents/Uploads/Manifesto.pdf).
48/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Programmes target high risk groups (or environments) and promote safety. A 2009
Cochrane review of the WHO Safe Communities model found that although there are
approximately 150 designated ‘safe communities’ there are limited controlled
evaluations to allow overall scientific review (Spinks & Turner et al., 2009).
However individual projects have reported successful outcomes. Of particular note in
child passenger safety is work done within Hispanic communities in the United
States, in response to the finding that CRS use is less common in minority and lowincome population. The Injury Prevention Centre of Greater Dallas led a 3 year
community based culturally integrated programme, with funding also provided by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Centres for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). They chose the Hispanic community after preliminary
research showed higher accident levels and lower CRS use in this community,
compared to others in Texas. To explore the low CRS use they organised a series of
focus groups and interviews within the community. A number of key points were
raised:









Need for more information on child restraint laws, the importance of using
CRS and how to install and use CRS – it is important not to assume that
things are common knowledge – especially in communities where people may
be new to the country
Language barriers make reading difficult for some – so it is important to
consider opportunities for face-to-face discussion and the use of visual and
aural media
The cost of child seats is considered prohibitive
CRS are considered inconvenient due to the space they take up in a car and
the need to transfer them between vehicles
In strongly religious cultures, fatalistic views can negate any perceived need to
use safety restraints of any kind
Lack of enforcement contributes to low CRS use
Parents may believe they do not need CRS because they are safe drivers, or
because they feel safer holding their children
Road safety may be considered low priority in communities with greater
concerns (in this community, levels of violence and crime)
In some communities it may not be considered ‘masculine’ to use restraints
Taking on board these points, this programme delivered a range of activities, led by
specially trained bi-lingual staff, most of whom lived within the target community. Key
stakeholders were identified and asked to participate. Information was delivered to
parents and children on the use of child restraints, with the aim to educate,
encourage and enable. As an incentive, workshops covered wider issues of concern
(beyond road safety) and parents who attended were offered subsidised seats (for
just US$10) which to address the issue of fatalism had been blessed in a special
ceremony by local priests. In total over 3,000 CRS were distributed within this
programme.
Structured observational surveys indicated that CRS use among Hispanic pre-school
aged children rose from a baseline of 21% to 73% by the end of the 3 years. Further
details of this work are available on The National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC)
website.
49/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Greenberg-Seth & Hemenway et al. (2004) reviewed another US programme aimed
at a low-income Hispanic community. The ‘Kids in the Back’ (Niños Atrás) project
was implemented from August 2000 to March 2002 in Holyoke, Massachusetts. A
bilingual community coordinator was trained as a certified child passenger safety
technician and a community task force was set up to identify needs and guide the
development of resources, which were also informed by focus groups and in-depth
interviews.
There was a broad aim to change social norms and an incentive programme was
established to reward families who were observed transporting children in the rear
seats of their cars, rather than the front. They were not directly rewarded for restraint
use, but it was part of the overall educational message.
Volunteers distributed rewards at set locations with safe stopping points (such as
schools and daycare), to parents and children where the family was correctly seated,
with rewards including travel mugs, sweets and raffle tickets (for larger prizes).
Families who had not seated children in the back were given verbal and written
information about the importance of sitting children in the back. The bilingual
brochures and activity books were also distributed through schools, health care
providers, community agencies and specially hosted events as part of a wider
community education programme. In addition local media support was engaged to
ensure the programme was covered by newspapers, radio and television in the area.
To evaluate the short-term success, child seating patterns were observed before and
after intervention and brief interviews were conducted to assess exposure to the key
programme messages. This was done across both intervention and control areas.
Greenberg-Seth & Hemenway et al. (2004) reported that child rear seating increased
from 33% to 49% in the intervention city (P<0.0001) and was significantly correlated
with reported programme exposure. It was identified that a combination of incentives
and message exposure across multiple channels gave the strongest effect. It was
also noted that the greatest improvement was observed in relatively higher-income
areas.
The researchers concluded that community based programmes that
incorporate incentives can be successful, independent of any legislation.
It is interesting to note that a similar incentive programme was considered as part of
the Texas work with the Hispanic community, but it was rejected after focus groups
indicated that they would change behaviour only long enough to get any rewards.
5.8
THINK! Education
THINK is a dedicated road safety website run by the UK Department for Transport. It
has an education section with resources for teachers, pupils and parents. Within the
primary school pages there are resources on booster seats and seat belt use for:
Children under 5:

Online story about car safety & booster seats - for young children
www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/media/mr_lumpy/
50/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Children aged 5 to 7 years:

Online story about car safety & booster seats for children
www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/pupils/5-to-7/read/carclever/a-safe-place-to-sit/
 Pictures of child car seats and boosters
www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/pupils/5-to-7/see/carclever/
Children over 7 years:



Online story about the importance of keeping seatbelts fastened
www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-and-primary/pupils/over7s/watch/alishas-story/
Downloadable brochure on road safety (including safety in cars) – “A highway
code for young road users”
www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-andprimary/docs/tales_of_the_road.pdf
Worksheets on safety in vehicles
 www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-andprimary/docs/activitysheet_1_theme_4.pdf
 www.dft.gov.uk/think/education/early-years-andprimary/docs/activitysheet_2_theme_4.pdf
These freely available resources are part of a Government led educational campaign
strategy to instil a range of road safety messages in children from a young age. The
THINK! programme also uses posters, leaflets and television campaigns focused on
different aspects of road safety and each focused around specific target groups.
The resources here demonstrate how a campaign on the same issues can be
adapted to meet the needs of different users – in this case, children of different ages
and ability levels.
5.9
Child Safety Education Campaign in Germany
5.9.1
Introduction
Numerous studies, accident analyses, and other results of research projects dealing
with child car safety have demonstrated many times that child seat misuse is rather
widespread and in many cases a decisive factor when it comes to the outcome of an
accident. Very often, the misuse results from a lack of knowledge on the part of the
user. This is the reason why the Association for Vehicle Safety (“Verein für
Fahrzeugsicherheit Berlin e.V.”), in cooperation with partners from the German
industry and others, has developed a training concept to disseminate information
about the correct use of child restraint systems. For reaching a high number of users
a concept was developed how to train multipliers in child safety and enable them to
train parents. These multipliers are people who maintain work-related contacts with
parents of children aged 0 to 12 years, such as midwives, nurses, but also policemen
and salesmen of cars and child seats.
51/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
During the last years a lot of courses took part and a vast amount of experience has
been gained with regards to how to raise people’s awareness to this important issue,
how to address the major problems, and how to present the basic facts, so that
multipliers can pass the relevant information on to their clients.
5.9.2 Aim and Purpose of Child Safety Education for Multipliers
When it comes to the improvement of child restraint systems, the issue of using these
systems appropriately is a crucial one. Field studies, accident analyses, and other
scientific publications have increasingly shown that the main problem does not
primarily lie in the quality of a CRS itself, but rather in the way it is used. This was
confirmed in the results of the field study again in the CASPER project. There is
certainly a connection between these two aspects: A good quality child seat is much
less likely to be used incorrectly. However, even with the best CRS of the current
generation the risk of misuse cannot be entirely eliminated. Consequently, there is a
need to inform the users, in particular the parents, how to avoid this risk.
In collaboration with the industry, the Association for Vehicle Safety (“Verein für
Fahrzeugsicherheit Berlin e.V.”) has developed an education concept that can be
used to inform and instruct so-called multipliers on the correct use of CRS. The idea
behind the training is that these multipliers will subsequently be able to pass the
knowledge on to the parents.
5.9.3 Multipliers
Multipliers are people who, as part of their work, deal with parents of children at the
age of zero to twelve years, for example nursery teachers, midwives, policemen,
driving instructors as well as car salesmen or salesmen of child seats.
Due to different professions the multipliers have a different basis of knowledge. While
driving instructors have a good understanding for vehicle safety, midwives are well
versed in the biomechanics of children. Hence, the content of the education has to be
adapted to the specific skills of the participants.
Thanks to the support of the industrial partners, the training courses can be offered
free of charge. However, it must be said that it remains a big challenge to attract
participants to these courses. In general, we as the organizers are confronted with
two major problems: The first one is doubt on the part of the target group as to
whether such training is useful in the first place. For many people securing a child in
a car does not appear to be a topic that should be dealt with in a full-day course.
There is no awareness to potential problems that can occur in connection with the
transport of children in cars and even less awareness to the possibility of child seat
misuse and its possible consequences. There is therefore certainly a need for new
strategies to win more participants in the future.
Secondly, there is a time problem. Attending a full-day training course means to be
away from work for a full day. For this reason, some of the courses offered took place
on Saturdays.
52/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
5.9.4 The education concept
In the last three years, the Association for Vehicle Safety (“Verein für
Fahrzeugsicherheit Berlin e.V.”) has been able to gather a vast amount of experience
in teaching multipliers with regard to which facts about child car safety are relevant
for the target group, how the participants can be sensitised to typical problems and,
last but not least, how such a complex issue can be explained to people who have
never been engaged with the kinematics of accidents. What follows is a brief
description of the theoretical and practical content of the education programme.
5.9.5 Theory – necessary basic knowledge
Even though it is not necessary to teach them the whole range of protection
mechanics in accidents, it is nevertheless important that the participants of the
training courses acquire a basic understanding of what happens in an accident and
of the forces that are acting upon those involved. To further explain typical
biomechanical effects and the influence of the misuse of child restraint systems on
them, videos of crash tests and misuse tests are shown.
By comparing the correct with the incorrect use of child seats, the participants realise
why the correct securing of children is important and what serious consequences the
misuse can have. Videos show for example the effect of an interchanged belt on a
baby shell, which is almost unsecured if shoulder and lap belt are inverted. Another
video demonstrates that under no circumstances should a child be carried in the
parent’s lap during the car journey.
In general, biomechanics is also among the topics dealt with in the training courses:
Why is there a need for a special seat for children, what are the differences between
children and adults apart from weight and size when it comes to questions of road
safety, why is a rearward-facing seat especially designed for infants much safer than
a forward-facing one?
In addition, detailed information on the different CRS classes are given: Which seat
for which child; how are the different seat types used; what are the typical forms of
misuse with regard to the different seat types; at which child age should the seat be
replaced.
Furthermore, basic figures about accidents in Germany and their development in
recent years are given as well as basic information regarding the legal situation.
53/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
At the beginning of each course, each multiplier receives a description of a real
accident where children were involved. The description comprises information on the
accident details, the child’s age and seating position and the CRS used. The
participant is asked to keep this in mind over the day. At the end of the course, after
the participants have learned a great deal about child safety, they are asked to
present the accident details to the group. This is followed by a discussion of why the
children involved in the respective cases were injured, i.e. whether there was any
child seat misuse involved, or why in a certain accident the fact that a child was not
injured resulted from the correct use of the child seat, which would then demonstrate
the safety potential of these seats. The accidents discussed are reconstructed
accidents from the child database, so that videos of the reconstruction tests can be
shown.
Most of the participants of our training courses say that discussing these real
accidents has shown them in a particularly impressive way the serious consequences
child seat misuse can have and how important it is to prevent it.
5.9.6
Practice – learning by doing
At the beginning of the course, volunteers are asked to correctly fit a child seat to a
car seat and then to place a training doll into the CRS. The other participants are
asked to observe the action. In most cases, the volunteers have major problems in
installing the seat. Thus, it is demonstrated right from the start that securing a child in
a car is not as easy as it appears to be. After this demonstration, the participants
normally have no further doubts about the usefulness of the training.
The practical part plays indeed a major role in the training. Nearly fifty per cent of the
time is used for it, so that the participants have the possibility to practise installing
different child seats into different cars, to make mistakes and to correct them. The
instructors show them the consequences of child seat misuse and how to identify it.
After that, the multipliers have the task of detecting the incorrect use of seats already
installed in cars. With this method, the participants learn to easily identify typical
mistakes and to improve their awareness with regard to the correct and incorrect use
of child seats.
54/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
6 Key features across campaigns
Considerations to note from successful campaigns:









6.1
Target both parents and children with separate resources for each and try to
make them feel empowered (rather than lectured)
Use of an appealing central character can help make the campaign
memorable
Use a range of media to appeal to different preferences and learning styles
Try to repeat exposure to the message and use opportunities to gain a captive
audience (e.g. waiting rooms)
Seek opportunities for cross-agency promotion
Work with community volunteers and build capacity to spread the message
personally to large numbers of people (e.g. people able to talk in schools, or
able to check car seat fitting at organised events)
Consider the use of targeted incentives and promotional gifts for short term
gains – but delivered within a programme that also tackles barriers to long
term behavioural change
Ensure information is clear and appropriate for the target group – learn about
the audience before developing materials and adapt resources wherever
necessary (even within groups)
Consider the impact of cultural concerns, religious beliefs etc. on safety
behaviour and find ways to respond to this in a way that is respectful and
positive – supporting change in a culturally acceptable way
CRS cost and subsidies
Safety campaigns, as outlined in the previous section, can do a lot to raise
awareness of child safety in cars, but lack of awareness is not the only barrier to CRS
use. One issue in non-compliance with child restraint policy is the relatively high cost
of many child restraint systems, and relative affordability varies significantly across
different countries.
Research by Hendrie & Miller et al. (2004) explored affordability based on the income
level across 18 countries and found that child safety seats were often prohibitively
expensive in lower income countries. For the purposes of this study, income levels
were defined according to typical wages: lower income <US$3.00/hour, middle
income US$3.00/hour to US$9.99/hour (actual range $5.64 - $8.13), higher income
>=US$10/hour.
Through the SAFE KIDS network, they asked people across the 18 selected
countries to identify the lowest cost child restraints available locally, that met the
relevant local/national standards. To make the affordability link, prices of the seats
were expressed in terms of number of hours of factory work required to buy them,
based on published pre-tax wages including supplements.
They reported that a child safety seat would typically cost 5 hours of work in a higher
income country, 10.5 hours of work in a middle income country and 79 hours of work
55/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
in a lower income country. There was of course variation within each income bracket,
and within the high income countries. The relative cost of child seats could be 3 times
higher in some countries than in others.
Desapriya, Pike & Joshi (2005) wrote a response to this research comparing the
situation in Japan. They reported that income levels were relatively high but that child
restraints were perceived as costly (approximately US$250-400). They therefore
suggested that government subsidies would be necessary to increase CRS use by
making them more affordable and by motivating parents. They argued that although
a subsidy programme would be expensive, the public health benefits make it
worthwhile, and that morally there is an obligation to ensure that children are
protected in cars regardless of their individual family income.
In 1993, Miller, Demes & Bovbjerg argued that if we had universal child seat use, the
costs saved through the prevention of death and injury would outweigh the amount
spent. Their calculations suggest that US$1 spent on child seats (based on a bulk
purchase price) saves US$2 in medical care costs, US$6 in other tangible expenses
and preserves quality of life, valued at over US$25. They argued that it would make
economic sense for insurers (car and health) to invest in misuse reduction
programmes. They further suggested that car insurers should consider subsidising
child restraint purchases (on the basis that usage rates are already relatively high
amongst those who purchase insurance cover).
Although they could not make a viable financial case for private health insurers to
subsidise seats, they suggested it is worthwhile for Medicaid (a national health
programme for US citizens with low income) to offer subsidies. Miller, Zaloshnja &
Sheppard (2002) conducted further research in the USA and reported that misuse
checkpoints increase child seat effectiveness by 21% with an estimated benefit-cost
ratio of 36. Where misuse checkpoints are combined with child seat distribution
schemes, the estimated benefit-cost ratio rises to 50.7. Both types of programme
were estimated to save medical expenses that exceed their costs. This work took a
leap forward from Miller’s earlier evaluation (Miller et al. 1993), now stating that if
Medicaid provided a free child seat for every child aged 0-4 years old that they
covered (rather than the previously suggested subsidy), the financial benefits would
outweigh the costs.
The Children’s Safety Network (2005) reported that in the USA, child seat use
averages 65% but is as low as 25% among children aged 0-4 years old from low
income families (those eligible for Medicaid). It is also reported that 92% of lowincome parents who own a child safety seat use it.
Miller, Zaloshnja & Hendrie (2006) followed up the work on CRS for children aged 0-4
years old, by looking at booster seat use amongst 4-7 year olds and concluded that
for each booster seat purchased, the saving in societal costs is around $1,854, with a
return in investment of 9.4 to 1. The estimated return of booster seat legislation is 8.6
to 1.
Child seat loan schemes are an alternative to subsidy programmes and have been
successfully demonstrated in Sweden as part of a wider educational programme
(Ekman & Welander et al., 2001). There have also been local trials in a number of
other countries including Austria, the UK and the USA. With loan schemes there are
56/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
a number of additional considerations, including storage, maintenance, product
lifespan and safety for re-use.
57/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
7 Effectiveness of interventions
7.1
Background
A 2009 Cochrane Review on interventions to promote the use of booster seats in four
to eight year olds (Ehiri et al. 2009) looked at five studies involving a total 3,070
individuals. Combining incentives (such as discount coupons or freely distributed
seats) with education demonstrated “marked beneficial outcomes”. Evidence for the
impact of legislation was less clear – with data mainly coming from uncontrolled
before-and-after studies, although a beneficial effect was still suggested.
The typical outcome measures identified in the Cochrane review were:



A comparison of crash related death and injury rates of children aged four to
eight years between intervention and control groups
The proportion of children aged four to eight years who were observed using
booster seats while travelling in motor vehicles
The reported use of booster seats by people who transport children (although
it was recognised that this evidence of effectiveness should be considered as
relatively weak).
Although, as identified in the Cochrane Review, uncontrolled data such as national
statistics cannot provide strong evidence for effectiveness, we can look broadly at
trends in accident statistics before and after CRS laws were introduced.
7.2
Casualty statistics
In Great Britain, RoSPA reported a marked fall in the number of children under 12
injured in car accidents in the year after the UK child restraint legislation was
introduced (www.childcarseats.org.uk/latest/childseatlaw.htm). In 2005, 7,033
children under 12 were injured as car passengers; 326 of these were killed or
seriously injured. Legislation making the use of child restraints mandatory for children
12 and below 1.35m tall was introduced in September 2006. The following year
national statistics showed a drop in the number of child passenger injuries to 5,927,
with 271 killed or seriously injured. Child restraint legislation is unlikely to be the only
factor in this casualty reduction as there is a background of falling casualty numbers
overall, but it might be assumed that it had an impact.
Looking at national figures published in Great Britain, there is a clear downward trend
in children killed or seriously injured in cars that originates prior to the introduction of
the 2006 legislation, perhaps reflecting a range of national road safety initiatives,
alongside increases in vehicle safety performance.
58/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 9: Reported children killed or seriously injured by
road user type: Great Britain 1994-2010
Source: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report Overview
and trends in reported road casualties. (rrcgb2010_01), Chart 7.
www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010
Focusing specifically on car occupant fatalities there is an overall downward trend for
all age groups. Child restraint legislation is an important part of a wider road safety
strategy, which also includes extensive legislation and enforcement, information
campaigns targeting a range of road user behaviours, and practical learning
opportunities including child seat fitting checks and speed awareness workshops. It is
difficult to extract any one element of a complete road safety culture and judge its
impact in isolation.
Figure 10: Reported car occupant fatalities by age group: Great Britain 1994-2010
Source: Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2010 Annual Report Overview
and trends in reported road casualties.
(rrcgb2010_01), Chart 14
www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidents-and-safety-annual-report-2010
Looking at the actual figures for GB child accident data over time (Table 10), there
were 61% less KSIs in 2009 compared to the 1994-98 average and all modes of
transport except cycling have seen year on year drops – all with an overall
percentage change of -59 to -65%. Obviously child restraints only contribute to the
car user statistics, again clearly demonstrating that there are multiple factors
responsible for these results.
59/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 10: Children reported killed or seriously injured by
road user type, Great Britain 2009 (RRCGB 2009)
2009 Percentage change
over:
Number
1994-98
average
2007
2008
2009
2008
1994-98
average
Pedestrians
4,167
1,899
1,784
1,660
-7
-60
Pedal
cyclists
1,129
522
417
458
10
-59
Car users
1,303
526
490
463
-6
-64
Other road
users
261
143
116
90
-22
-65
Males
4,402
2,007
1,818
1,757
-3
-60
Females
2,457
1,083
986
914
-7
-63
Age 0-4
888
372
347
314
-10
-65
Age 5-8
1,657
540
543
512
-6
-69
Age 9-11
1,592
689
619
584
-6
-63
Age 12-15
2,722
1,489
1,298
1,261
-3
-54
All children
(aged 0-15)
6,860
3,090
2,807
2,671
-5
-61
Source: Department for Transport (2010). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain
2009.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110503151558/http://www.dft.gov.uk/ad
obepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009.pdf
7.3
EU data
This is not just a trend in Great Britain, but is seen in statistics at a European level.
Figure 11 illustrates the reduction over the 10 year period of 1999 to 2008 in child car
passenger fatalities for 0 to 13 year olds in 19 EU countries.
60/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
800
2.0%
Child car passenger fatalities 700
600
1.5%
% of all fatalities
500
400
1.0%
300
200
0.5%
100
0
0.0%
1999
2000
CARE Database / EC
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Date of query: May 2011
Figure 11: Number of child car passenger fatalities (0-13yrs) and proportion
of total fatalities, EU-19, 1999-2008
Source: Kirk, A, Lesire, P, Schick, S (April 2012) Road Reality Status (fatality
studies), Deliverable 3.2.1 of the EC FP7 Project CASPER.
Over the 10 year period the reduction in child car passenger fatalities is estimated to
be 50% for the EU-19 countries, from 752 to 374. This is against a general
background of falling fatalities but for all fatalities (all road users) the reduction over
this period is estimated to be less at 32% for the EU-19 countries (from 51,425 to
35,215). Of all fatalities in 2008, child car passenger fatalities account for 1.1%, a fall
from 1.5% in 1999.
Another element in trying to separate the casualty reduction effect of child restraint
legislation from other factors is the need for harmonised exposure data across EU
countries (Christie, 2007). Consistent exposure data that reported distance travel by
mode by age by country by year would be beneficial in examining fatality figures and
starting to try and extract the effect of child restraint legislation.
7.4
Studies
Reflecting on the findings of some individual studies. Iwase, Desapriya & Brussoni et
al., (2003) reported on the enactment of child restraint legislation in Japan (for
children aged 0-5 years). The introduction of CRS law increased usage from
approximately 8% in 1998 to 60% in 2000, but observational studies suggested
misuse was high, and usage dropped over time without effective enforcement (52%
in 2002). The research of Iwase, Desapriya & Brussoni et al (2003) suggested that
CRS legislation had not reduced the total number of child motor vehicle occupant
casualties at that stage, although a greater proportion of these injured children were
now restrained. What is unclear is the extent to which injuries may have been
mitigated by the use of restraints and the patterns of misuse seen in these injury
cases. Their findings however reinforce the need to back up any legislation with
effective education and enforcement.
Reeve, Zurynski, Elliott & Bilston (2007) conducted a review of child restraint use,
legislation, policy, parental knowledge and attitudes, with a particular focus on
61/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Australia. They found restraint use was high (over 92%) but that many parents lacked
knowledge about how to choose the correct restraint, how to install/use it correctly
and the safest seating position. This demonstrates that even where the usage rate is
high, education and enforcement are still important.
Legislation can also have unintended consequences. A self-report study into the
effect of a newly strengthened child restraint law on proper child seat use in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin found that following enactment of the law, there was a
significant increase in the number of children prematurely moved into belt positioning
booster seats among poor urban children (Brixey, Ravindran & Guse, 2010). This
study was based on 11,566 surveys collected between 2006 and 2008 (pre and postlegislation). It was suggested that increased publicity specifically regarding booster
seat law perhaps led to people believing that booster seats are inherently safer than
other child restraint types. Additional observational work linked to this study, (Brixey
& Corden et al, 2011) found racial differences in booster seat use. Again looking pre
and post legislation, white individuals increased proper booster use from 48 to 68%,
for black individuals the rate dropped from 18 to 7% and for Latino individuals it
remained steady at 10% regardless of changes to the legislation. This suggests that
work to promote appropriate use was not effective in all communities and a more
targeted approach may be necessary, exploring any cultural differences and looking
at barriers such as relative cost.
There are also success stories. New York State introduced an upgraded child
restraint law in 2005, which required the use of booster seats for children aged 4-6
years old. Sun, Bauer & Hardman (2010) conducted a before and after study (20032007) into the effects of this law, comparing injury rates for children aged 4-6 years
with children aged 0-3 years, travelling as passengers in motor vehicles. Estimates
were taken from monthly injury count data produced by the New York State
Department of Motor Vehicles Accident Information System. They reported that the
traffic injury rate for children aged 4-6 years reduced by 18% whereas there was no
appreciable change for children aged 0-3 years (who were not directly affected by the
booster seat law). They also reported that there was a 72% increase in the child
restraint use rate. Other successes include the Navajo Nation occupant and child
restraint laws (Phelan, Khoury & Grossman et al., 2002).
Then there are challenges for those who must transport children in greater numbers.
Chang, Ebel & Rivara (2002), conducted a postal survey study of licensed childcare
centres in Washington State approximately nine months prior to the first booster seat
law in that state taking effect (and 18 months after it was first enacted). Surveys were
distributed to 550 licensed childcare centres (from a total of 1865) and 357 returned
(65% response rate). 18% of respondents reported that they were already compliant
with the law at the time of the survey, 43% had started preparing for the introduction
of the law but less than half (48%) were certain they would be ready in time. It was
suggested that childcare centres need support and assistance to both increase their
knowledge of booster seats and to reduce the costs of complying with the law.
There are many individual studies like these that all add to the overall understanding
of the effectiveness of CRS policy in its many forms, across different cultures, age
groups, settings and times. With so many factors and much variance it is useful to
refer instead to systematic reviews, such as that conducted by Zaza & Sleet et al.
62/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
(2001), on research into interventions for increasing CRS use, reviewing 72 studies in
total, having screened over 3,500 citations and 600 studies - Table 11.
Number of outcome
measures
Median change
Range
Fatal injuries
3
35.0% decrease
25.0%-57.3%
decrease
Fatal and nonfatal
injuries combined
5
17.3% decrease
10.5%-35.9%
decrease
Outcome
3
13.0% increase
5.0%-35% increase
Child safety seat use
Table 11: Effectiveness of child safety seat laws on various outcomes:
summary effects from the body of evidence
Source: Adapted from Zaza, S., Sleet, D.A., Thompson, R.S., Sosin, D.M., Bolen,
J.C. and the Task Force on Community Preventative Services (2001). Review of
evidence regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(Suppl. 4):31–47. Table 2, p33
http://thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-evrev-child-safety-seat.pdf
They report that legislation increases CRS use (~13%), decreases fatalities (~35%)
and decreases injuries, including fatalities (~17.3%).
63/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
8 IMPROVEMENT OF RELEVANT SAFETY REGULATIONS
One of the subtasks of Work Package 4 of the project had to consider and investigate
improvements of relevant safety regulations. These included:




More representative car environment in the regulation (load limiters, possibility
of seatbelt pretension, impact reproduction in frontal….) that could allow to
approve CRS in conditions closer to the ones in which they are supposed to
be the most efficient
More realistic seating position of children for CRS approval
Integration of new body segments to be protected (abdomen, lower limbs,
isolated brain injuries)
List of possible regulation changes to allow the application of the technical
solutions selected for the improvement of CRS by design
The most relevant child safety regulation in Europe is ECE R-44. A newer regulation
(ECE Reg. 1XX), improving this one, is being developed and part of the supporting
work is coming out as a result of an agreement between the CASPER consortium
and the GRSP ad-hoc group (see Appendix B). The main work done was to define
the side impact test procedure and to provide results and analysis of the testing that
was carried out.
8.1 Estimation of safety benefits
The new regulation requires installation of CRS by ISOFIX only for CRS of the
integral harness group. The mandatory use of ISOFIX addresses part of the identified
misuse (CRS installation misuse). Following that it is expected that the new
regulation will improve the quality of restraining children in cars and thus improve
safety.
The data gathered from the sociological survey carried out as part of the CASPER
project showed that parents/carers tend to move their children into forward facing
CRS as soon as possible, citing the lower 9kg limit of the 9kg to 18kg Group (I) as a
target rather than the upper 13kg limit of the Group 0+ seat they are already using.
However, an early change increases the possibility of the anatomical aspects above
leading to injury, particularly in frontal impacts, whilst the physically smaller body of
the child can increase the possibility of the shoulders escaping the harness straps. It
is therefore important to encourage parents to keep children rearward facing as long
as practically possible.
In the proposed new regulation, with the use of a ‘0-15 M’ label indicating only
rearward facing and not forward facing installation and "IMPORTANT - DO NOT USE
FORWARD FACING BEFORE THE CHILD'S AGE EXCEEDS 15 months (Refer to
instructions)" for forward facing CRS the message to parents and carers is clear that
the criteria for change is 15 months. If parents are currently changing at 9kg the new
regulation would give a greater length of time rearward facing for the majority,
compared to R44. In terms of child weight it could be said that the new regulation is
not moving the situation forward a large amount, but using the age instead of the
64/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
weight does offer practical advantages that could be large. Parents and carers know
the child’s age, whilst weight is sometimes not known as the child moves away from
being medically seen so often, or can easily be measured incorrectly at home. Also,
although proof would still be required, enforcement should be easier by age rather
than weight. In the same way, peer pressure may also play more of a part as age of a
child will be more transparent to friends and family than weight.
Currently (within ECE R44) CRS with support legs are considered as semi-universal
child restraint systems. Following that the CRS manufacturer needs to check the
fitting of the CRS in cars and provide a list of suitable cars.
With the new regulation and the corresponding modifications of ECE regulations 14
and 16 good experience with support legs will be standardized and following that in
principle further improved, defining criteria for the support leg geometry and the car
floor resistance and geometry, and improved compatibility between CRS and car.
However, the proposed dimensions for the support leg in X and Z direction seem not
to be the best compromise. By defining a support leg position in X direction, taking
into account the largest distance observed in cars, there is a considerable risk that
increased problems of interference with the front seats will occur.
According to ECE Regulation 44 only chest accelerometers are used with P
dummies. However, they also can assess head acceleration and neck loads.
However, after the testing programme Euro NCAP decided while introducing the child
safety protocol to use head and chest acceleration in Z direction as an indicator for
neck injury risks after observing repeatability and reproducibility problems with the
neck load cells in P dummies. Q dummies can be equipped with more sensors. In
total, the Q dummies fit better to child anthropometry than P dummies, are more
biofidelic than P dummies and offer better instrumentation. Using the Q-dummies in
the new regulation is estimated to be a substantial benefit for child safety. This is a
good indication for the improvements in child safety. Table 12 shows a comparison of
the possible instrumentation of P and Q dummies.
Table 12: Q-dummies sensors available for reconstructions (P/Q dummies comparison,
Longton, 2011)
Instrumentation
Sensor
Region
3-axis accelerometers
6-axis load cell
3-axis angular rate
sensor
Displacement sensor
Head
Thorax
Pelvis
Upper neck
Lower neck
Lumbar spine
Head
Chest
Q0




P0
Dummies
Q1 /
P1½
Q1½














Q3 /
Q6







P3 /
P6




Despite the development of side impact dummy versions of Q3 and Q6 (Q3s and
Q6s), GRSP decided to use standard Q dummies also in lateral impact conditions.
The CASPER partners have no experience with the side impact versions of the
dummies. Following that no recommendation can be given.
65/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
For phase 2 of the development of the new regulation, it is important to discuss
whether or not side impact protection of the CRS is important for all CRS sizes or if a
sufficient protection of the car can be expected for children exceeding a specific size.
However, no recommendation is possible based on currently available CASPER
data.
8.2 Recommendations for Phase II of the development of the new
regulation
The recommendations are summarized below, addressing firstly issues to be
considered for integral harness systems and secondly for booster type CRS:



The geometric support leg requirements proposed in the current draft ECE
R1XX are likely to cause problems with the front seats in small cars. A review
taking the front seats into account is recommended.
Neck injury criteria and corresponding load limits are crucial for the protection
of the smallest children. It is likely that the CASPER project will deliver useful
injury risk functions by the end of the project.
The abdominal APTS sensor as proposed by the CASPER project is expected
to be a reliable tool for the assessment of abdominal injury risks as soon as
test bench design and dummy design allow replication of submarining.
66/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
9 DEFINITION OF ACTIONS OF COMMUNICATION AND THEIR
POSSIBLE IMPACTS ON THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT OF THE
SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS
9.1
Introduction:
First of all, it’s important to be reminded that to be effective the communication of
knowledge has to be adapted to different audiences, but it’s not the only point to be
treated before a communication campaign. It’s necessary to well define what the
targets and the messages to be forwarded are. Then it can be decided if it is possible
to reach all of them using the same message on the same support. If their need is
common then it is possible, if not, the most appropriate support of communication
has to be chosen for each target. Messages have to be understandable by the
majority of people constituting each target. It’s also necessary to adapt the message
according the size of its audience. Specific issues can be treated locally (after the
analysis of some field studies for example), but the messages have to be different if it
has to be caught at a National level or if Worldwide spread.
It’s also important to notice that based on past experiences, communication
messages are efficient up to a certain point. After that, it is necessary to combine it
with practice sessions by final users and people in charge of indicating how to fix a
CRS into a car (parents, salesman). After a certain age, children can be involved in
the practice sessions as parents often leave them the responsibility to buckle
themselves in every day travels.
9.2
Main messages to be delivered by targets:
9.2.1 Parents:
They of course have to be considered as the main target, firstly because they are
responsible for the safety of their children but also because they are the final users of
CRS.
Parents need to be conscious of their responsibility of transporting their children in
cars not only regarding the law but also for safety reasons. Sociological studies have
underlined the existing gap between what parents want to achieve in terms of child
safety and what way they really behave. It also has shown that parents are
overestimating their driving skills, and the quality of installation of their CRS if any.
They have to be guided on the choice of the appropriate CRS for the child they intend
to protect, and compatible with the car they use to transport that child. Then once the
CRS have been selected, they have to know how to integrate it correctly in order to
offer the child its maximum potential protection. To remind them the rate of incorrectly
restrained children in cars is one of the ways of having them wonder if their situation
is as good as they thought it was.
To reach parents many different ways are possible, such as dedicated websites,
discussion forums, on which many parents are exchanging information on child
issues, but to enlarge this to a more global target, Tv spots, roadside posters, and
flyers distributed in dedicated places seem better. Individual information is also a
possible option if given by a person in which parents trust, such as medical doctors,
67/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
nurses, teachers or policemen. This allows adapted information that they need at the
present moment or in the near future and not necessarily to give them a complete
package of information in which they have to select the right ones. This is especially
true for the choice of an adapted CRS, and to solve specific problems.
9.2.2 Children:
Children that have always been restrained do not feel comfortable travelling without
being restrained. This shows how sensitive they can be to the subject of their safety.
What is important to tell them is that CRS are mandatory up to a certain age or
weight or height according to countries. It is possible to insist on the fact that using a
CRS does not make them look like “babies” like it is often said by children aged 6 or
7 years, but more like “I feel responsible for my safety”. Of course the earlier children
are aware of the importance of the safety in cars, the better it is. So it would be good
to have a first approach through educational games (adapted to ages). These games
could also be supported to be played on computers, and even on-line versions could
be attractive after a certain age. Of course one of the best ways to reach all children
is to bring the subject to a school level. In some countries, specific programs that
include both theory and practice exist to improve the behaviour of children as cyclists
and pedestrians in the street. They could be extended to the situation of travelling in
cars, knowing that this will mostly influence the behaviour of children already too old
(too heavy or too high) to use G1 CRS or even boosters. Nevertheless, before the
school age it is possible to consider that parents always decide for their children the
type of restraint to use and how to use it. The best way to get young children
sensitive to the safety is to get them used to be restrained in every occasion of
travelling by car. Most of the children can get reached through TV channel programs
dedicated to young public. They are also more and more connected on social nets
very early. So it could be a way to maintain their awareness on safety in cars,
through messages.
9.2.3 Public authorities:
The main aim of public authorities are to be regularly updated in terms of statistics on
the situation of children in cars in order to keep having a good level of awareness and
be able to decide if specific actions or communications are necessary to improve the
situation.
To be able to check the situation and have the possibility to have the law respected
on the road concerning the transportation of children in cars, it is crucial that
policemen get sufficient knowledge on the appropriateness and the correct use of
restraint systems. They can after that run prevention and/or repression campaigns.
9.2.4 Industries (Safety device development):
To be able to develop correctly a restraint system or a part of the system contributing
to linked the child to the vehicle, it is important that every actor has a basic
knowledge of child safety and of the constraints, regulations that have to be
respected by the other contributors in order that all parts are at the end fully
compatible and lead to systems that are physically usable with the best possible ease
of use, so that the risk of misuse becomes very low.
68/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
9.2.5 Industries (Sale departments):
People in charge of selecting the CRS that are going to be sold in shops need to
have a good knowledge of the technical aspects of these products, not only to have
financial agreements with some brands. They then have to forward technical points to
salesman such as ISOFIX, the protection in side impact, and all other add-values that
one system can offer compared to another one. When parents are on the point to buy
a CRS, they could then be able to explain differences between products not only
speaking of price or of the fact that all systems have been approved according to the
same regulation, so they have the same level of protection as it has been heard in
some shops.
It is necessary that they have real knowledge of the products available in their shops
in order to indicate what the most appropriate system is for a given child that is going
to travel in a car of a given model. These people also need to be trained to install the
products they have in their shops, and integrate their own experience of the ease of
use of the systems in the choice of parents.
For car dealers, it could be good that they also have a good knowledge of the
recommended CRS for the vehicle they are on the point to sale. Their knowledge on
items such as CRS and airbags, equipment of the cars that could improve the safety
of children (ISOFIX, side airbags, load limitation, pretension…) have to be at the top
level of importance.
9.2.6 Day-nurseries / hospitals:
People working in hospitals and in day-nurseries are often in contact with parents,
and can be considered as specialists on all items by them. That’s why they need to
have at least a basic knowledge of why it is important to properly restrain children in
cars. The ECE R44 classification of CRS could be the first reference they need to
have with some explanations on the use of CRS. Main physiological differences
between children belonging to the different groups, and the reasons of technical
solutions to protect children should be given. They should then be able to answer
questions such as why the rearward facing position is preferable than the forward
facing direction for young children. They should also be able to warn parents on
items such as interactions of CRS with frontal airbags, and advise them on existing
systems such as ISOFIX, new technological solutions that improve the ease of use or
that limit the risk of misuse.
9.3
Possible ways of disseminating information
After having defined messages for each target, it’s necessary to indicate what the
possible ways for dissemination are. This paragraph is about defining who can be
actors in the process more than insisting on the support to be used for that. The use
of electronic supports is becoming more and more common, nevertheless, it has to
be kept in mind that the visual memory may not be the only solution to be proposed.
Contact with people that are able to give good advice can have a better impact than a
pop-up coming from a website. In addition, instructing parents is not only restricted to
forward them information but also to give them the opportunity to practice. This will
improve their global behaviour. As it has been show during the CEDRE project33
many fathers of new born babies were lost when they have to leave the maternity
hospital because very few had practiced CRS installation before this day. This is
certainly true for every change of CRS: most parents install them for the first time
69/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
when they have to go somewhere with children, which means more or less under the
pressure of time.
9.3.1 Parents: (target = children, other parents)
Of course, parents being the reference for children in terms of what is good and what
is not, have an essential role to play in the awareness of their children. But for that,
they need to be aware of the importance of the subject and have sufficient knowledge
about it. Once this is done, children will feel secure when restrained. Another aspect
of parents as a possible transmission mode is that they interact more and more with
other parents directly or through websites and forums. The higher their level of
information is, the more they’ll be able to forward reliable messages.
9.3.2 Public authorities: (target = parents, all contributors)
It is essential that people living in a country know the rules in terms of transportation
of children. The public authorities need to regularly published or run an information
campaign involving child safety. It’s also their role, to ensure that the rules are
respected. It is known that prior to the repression phase, the first step is to inform the
public of the issue (e.g. between 50 and 70% of children are not correctly restrained
when travelling in cars). This can be done in many ways, radio or Tv spots dedicated
to parents, roadside poster campaigns. At the same time it is necessary to ensure
that police are sufficiently informed on how children have to be transported in cars.
Then they can be an additional support to help parents, randomly checking seatbelt
and CRS use in some targeted points such as school areas, supermarket parking
lots, or randomly on the roadside. Only after that a repression phase can be initiated.
It has to be noticed that if they can detect a wrong installation of CRS, the most
important point from a safety side is to be able to tell parents how to use it correctly.
That’s one point where user manuals have a big importance, and where it is
appreciable that they are stored with the CRS.
9.3.3 Maternity / Hospitals: (target = parents)
During pregnancy, future mothers, sometimes accompanied by future fathers, have
regular visits to maternity hospitals, to check on the babies’ condition and to receive
advice to prepare to be ready as parents. This is a time where these people are really
receptive to safety messages. Even if it’s too early to have them knowing everything
about transportation of children in cars from birth to 10 or 12 years of age, they have
to be prepared to face the installation of a CRS in their car, to be sure that they will
be able to choose correctly the first restraint systems, and that they will be able to
install it correctly. So it would be good to have a special session dedicated to this
during which they could practice a little bit and be given leaflets, if possible in their
maternal language. As they have to understand a lot of other information, especially
for the first child, it would only be necessary to give them information for the first CRS
to be used, after that additional information could be recommended through websites,
paediatric doctors and nurseries.
9.3.4 Nurseries/paediatric doctors: (target = parents)
In Europe the social systems to take care of children between birth and 3 years may
differ from one country to another one, so communications have to be adapted
70/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
accordingly. In some societal organizations, mothers have to be back at work a few
weeks after the birth. Often children are then going to day nurseries (public or
private) dedicated to take care of babies, in which employees are in contact with
children and parents everyday. They are witness to the continuous evolution of the
child growth and they could be a good referent in terms of child safety advice and
more particularly involved in the process of changing a CRS or its orientation. If the
advice comes from a person whom the parents trust, it will have more efficiency on
them. Employees from day-nurseries, nurses from hospital and paediatric doctors
could be the correct profiles for the dissemination of such information, they of course
have to be informed themselves of sufficient safety items before being able to do so.
9.3.5 Public education system (school): (target = children and parents)
For many people, schools are the biggest part of the education of their children, and
for that reason, teachers are supposed to be multi-field experts. Their educational
role is recognized by children and it’s easy for them to get their attention on safety
items. It is important to note that the message given for children (of school age) has
to be adapted to this particular audience and that teachers are the most appropriate
people to select what can be understood by children of a given age. Children have to
understand why it is required to get restrained while travelling in a car, and how this
can be correctly done at their age. Then, the fact of using an additional restraint
system has to be understood, it is often seen in field surveys that the rate of children
not using boosters is dramatically increasing after the age of 6, which is far too early
to only use the adult seatbelt. In some countries, pedagogical programs are built to
improve the behaviour of children when they become cyclists or pedestrians. Their
safety in cars (or more generally in road transports) could be part of these programs,
the first step being to get them to behave sensibly to the subject. The integration of
practice sessions could make this exercise more recreational and at the same time
would re-enforce the efficiency of the teaching.
The work program could be based on a classroom survey and practice experience.
Then teachers could be able to adapt the safety messages to the situation of their
classroom. It is known that the use of cars is not uniform for all children, and that
living in town or in a country side, and other socio-cultural differences have to be
considered in the program. A final de-briefing could be done in the presence of
parents so that they can relay the educational process. During the year, children
could have a sort of exam both on theoretical and practical knowledge.
In Turkey, pilot schools have experimented with programs for teenagers34 in order for
them to use the seatbelt in cars. This is a slot of 40 hours dedicated to road safety
and results are encouraging. This educational program could be used as a basis if
adapted for children of different ages and living in different countries.
9.3.6 Consumer organizations: (target = parents, public authorities)
These organisations have a major role both for the public authorities and for the
parents. Being independent from industry and having approval test laboratories give
them the position of rating products, and raising an alarm if one of them seems to not
be in accordance with safety rules (even if approved). The main help is on the
selection and the recommendation of products (cars and CRS) according to their
relative performance. Consumers are now used to looking at the safety ratings given
by the consumer organisations. When comparing safety products the importance of
the correct use and some basic rules are often reminded. Parents can then be guided
71/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
in their choice. Most of the time results are based on dynamic test results, but more
and more the compatibility of products and the ease of use are considered if not in
the final note, in the accompanying comments. In addition to the advice published on
the products themselves, consumer organisations can promote concepts such as
rearward facing, or ISOFIX and also disseminate messages on the importance of
appropriate and correct use of restraint systems, and car to CRS compatibility. Some
consumer organisations are running their own field studies, and have some
information campaigns in the media, often prior to holiday periods in order that
parents have safety issues in mind when preparing their journey. Some of them also
propose some educational programs to be run in schools.
9.3.7 Press: TV and radio spots / paper press: (target parents, children)
Media have a big role to play because they can reach a large number of people at
the same time. TV and radio spots can have a large impact on their audience
depending on the strength of their message. Child safety is a sensitive subject so it is
necessary to handle it with care, but on another hand, to use a visual support is
something that parents and children remember and will consider in their future
travels. The more visual it is, the more efficient a TV spot will be because there are
then no limitations to understanding because of the language or of text that has to be
understood. It has to be taken into consideration that children and parents are not
necessarily watching TV at the same hours and on the same channel, so messages
have to be adapted according to the target and level of comprehension that the
audience is supposed to have.
Regular reminders can be posted in specialized newspapers (in automotive subjects
or the ones dedicated to new parents), but the subject can also be reported in the
daily press especially to present results of road surveys.
9.3.8 Insurance: (target parents)
Insurance companies can have a big role in the prevention of road accidents and
their consequences to their customers. Most of them are editing newspapers or
newsletters containing specific subjects and the corresponding rules. They could
remind parents the context and their legal obligations regarding the transportation of
children in cars. They could also explain the different mass groups of the different
restraint systems. This is at a very general stage. But it could be interesting to go
further. Parents are often using the same insurance company to cover risks for the
cars, for the house and for external activities they can have. This means that
insurance companies have in their hand all the cards that are necessary to give good
advice: they know the composition of the family and by the way the age of the
children (for risks on extra scholar activities), they have the knowledge on the exact
vehicles (makes and models) insured by the family. They should then be able to
propose to each family to check that they use the appropriate restraint systems to
transport their children in cars. They could after that give advice on the systems that
are compatible with their vehicles (e.g. ISOFIX or not) and finally propose some CRS
models that they recommend for the combination of restraining the children in the
different family cars. In addition, this advice could be a golden investment for
insurance companies for two reasons: the subject being a sensitive one, parents will
appreciate and continue being customers of that company and secondly in case of
accidents having children using appropriate restraint systems would reduce the
72/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
amount of money the insurance company would have to spend because of the lower
risk of having injured children.
9.3.9 industry (Commercial branch): (target parents)
Sale assistants are one of the contacts from whom parents can have information on
the appropriate restraint to use according to their children and their vehicles. There
added-value is also on the technical points (ISOFIX, side impact protection…) that
they can discuss with parents. In addition to the information that parents can get from
them these people could also be in charge of installing the different systems on
demonstrators, they should have a good knowledge of the compatibility of the
products they are selling with cars. For salesman working in the car industry, they
have to be perfectly aware of the products that their brand is recommending and of
the compatibility of the different vehicles. In addition, speaking about adapted CRS to
parents when they buy a new car and proposing them the ones recommended by the
brand could be an excellent way to show them what is considered as the best
protection solutions for their children in their new car. Making a commercial offer on
restraint systems could be an alternative to discount on the price of the car.
9.3.10 industry (Safety device development): (target parents, insurance,
consumer organisations, public authorities)
The role of safety product developers is to remain aware of the different actors
involved in the child safety chain. This is applicable for new technical advancements
and for compatibility issues. User manuals for both CRS and car are mandatory, they
contain information about how to correctly use a restraint system. These last points
have had a lot of effort put into them in the past years, but it could be necessary to
insist on the fact that people have to read them to get informed of the correct way to
use a CRS in a car. Often CRS user manuals are stored in a part of the CRS so it’s
possible to check that the installation is correct. In addition, car user manuals clearly
indicate what the possible places to install a CRS are, with (when necessary) the
corresponding restrictions.
The promotion of the best performing systems is only possible through this way. It is
even more true when leading to solutions that are designed to help parents in their
judgement of the correctness of the use of the CRS. It is known from interviews that
parents admitted they are making mistakes when installing the CRS in cars and in
restraining children in their CRS but they do not have a clue of what is wrong.
Solutions exist or could be developed (visual and/or sonar) to help parents but they
have to be promoted and generalized to a large number of systems, otherwise their
benefit WOULD remain very low.
9.3.11 Parks and Museum: (targets: children and parents)
In many locations where people go with their children and where they have to queue
for a relatively long time, pedagogical experiences related to safety in cars could be
done: check with computers if the family is safely travelling, training of CRS
installation, of restraint system use: ask a child to sit on a booster and notice if he
puts the seatbelt under the arm, then adapt the screen after the experience to show
the effect of misuse…
Experiences like that can only be beneficial to improve child safety if they remind the
parents that they have to consider it for every travel and every car passenger.
73/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
9.3.12 Cultural referents: (targets: children and parents)
In some communities there is a need that safety messages are transmitted by an
ethnical or religious referent to be properly understood. This is true in Europe and
North America but also applicable in developing countries. The first step is then to
convince the referent of the importance of the issue for the community they are
representing and then to educate them properly. Then they can forward the message
and make their people cooperate with official organizations to improve the situation.
Such a successful experience has been reported by authorities from Ontario
(Canada) in the Child in cars Protection conference in 2010 in Munich35
9.4
Illustration with a recent communication campaign
In 2011, a collaboration has been set up between the Belgium Road Safety Institute
(BRSI) and the CASPER project. It has been done in three steps, the first one being
the data collection (field and internet survey), the second one being the analysis and
publication of results. Finally the third one is the communication actions based on the
results. As it has been said in the first paragraph of this chapter, the communicated
messages have to correspond to the needs and the information has to reach the right
target.
Main issues revealed by the survey were that half of children in the survey are not
correctly restrained. (10% not restrained at all), a lot of people buy their CRS in
supermarkets without any possible advice, children are not always using an
appropriate restraint system, parents allow children to be incorrectly restrained on
short trips and finally carers have difficulties in installing CRS in vehicles.
Three actions of communications have been built in order to be in line with these
results: The first one took place in a brand of supermarket for which specific
commercial flyers have been designed, with reminders of the legal aspects, of the
need to correctly use restraint systems and giving guidelines to choose the most
appropriate system for a child travelling in a car. The different models available in the
supermarkets were then presented with clear indications of mass groups and
installation instructions (e.g. forward or rearward facing). This flyer action has been
completed with the awareness and formation of salesmen of the child safety
department. The second action is the availability of three videos of parents installing
their children for short trips. Each video corresponds to a type of restraint system
(rearward facing infant carrier, forward facing with harness and booster with backrest)
with the specific points that have to be checked to ensure that the installation is
correct. They have been posted on the BRSI website that is the reference in Belgium
for road safety requests and that is also linked with a lot of forums and other safety
websites. The third and final action was the use of the roadside poster campaigns
that BSRI is annually running on the subject of child safety in cars to make parents
aware that half of the children in cars are not correctly restrained. Posters have been
dispatched in the three national languages along all highways of the country.
74/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
10 Improvement of the design of CRS
Misuse is one of the most important problems for the safety of children in cars today.
In parallel to the information and education of parents and children it could be
efficient to address this topic by the CRS development. A general rule for the design
of CRS should be that a CRS has to be easy to use and difficult to misuse. Following
this thought, novel technical solutions for the safety of children during the transport in
vehicles have to be checked according to their misuse potential and the
consequences of this potential misuse.
This demand on engineering and design on CRS is not the only possibility to
influence the misuse situation by technical solutions. The findings of the social study
as described in 2.2 of this deliverable show that parents do not expect to conduct
misuse by themselves. As they are not aware of the problem, they will not look for
support. Several technical solutions are developed to improve the way children are
restrained. This improved design of CRS should support the user to install the CRS in
the vehicle and to restrain the children correctly in the CRS.
Different misuse problems were detected for the different child restraint groups. Table
13 summarizes important misuse types per CRS group or type as identified in
CASPER WP3.
Table 13: Misuse types per CRS group/ type
CRS type
misuse 1
misuse 2
misuse3
Group 0/ 0+
(rearward
facing infant
carrier)
multi
directional
(convertible)
Incorrect seatbelt route
Harness not
sufficiently
tightened
Installed forward facing even if
not designed for it
Incorrect seatbelt route (unclear
instructions and labelling)
Mainly installed
forward facing
Harness not sufficiently
tightened
Incorrect seatbelt route
Harness not
sufficiently
tightened
Used too early (for children from
6 months) and left also too early
for booster seats
forward facing
Group I
Group II and Seatbelt under the arm (during
driving phase)
Group III
(booster seats;
booster
cushions)
seatbelt
Incorrect seatbelt
Geometrical incompatibility
route
(head restraint, form of cushion,
buckles position,…)
slack in seat belt
The identified CRS improvements and solutions are already partially available on the
market. These ideas and improvements are not generalized and only exist on single
CRS products. Here a generalization could support the reduction of misuse. Other
solutions are regulatory requests in different countries or concept studies. In a first
step the presented CRS developments are divided in such that offer solutions mainly
for harness system related misuse and such that offer solutions mainly for booster
type CRS related misuse.
75/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
10.1 Improvements for harness systems
Two solutions were shown to address the problem of not sufficiently tightened
harness systems ([Bendjellal et al., 2006], [Bendjellal et al., 2007], [Bendjellal,
2008]). The first idea is the implementation of an indicator that gives a visual
feedback on the harness tension (Figure 12). The shoulder padding on the harness
strap includes a mechanical flap. In the raised position, when the harness system is
not sufficiently tensioned, a negative pictogram is visible. By reducing the slack in the
harness system, the flap is moved downwards flat to the shoulder padding. A positive
pictogram is visible, indicating that the harness tension is sufficient.
Figure 12: Visual harness tension indicator [Bendjellal et al., 2007]
The second described solution is an audible indication of the correct tension of the
harness system. When sufficient tension is reached during the tensioning procedure
and the slack is removed, this is indicated by audible clicks.
The revised Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZ1754 includes markings on
the CRS that are related to the seating height of the child (Figure 13). The markings
show the highest and lowest shoulder height for the child that is intended to use the
CRS. The stickers can also give an indication about the position of an integrated
movable headrest or the use of rearward facing CRS [Lumley 1, 2009].
76/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 13: CRS markings according to the AS/NZ1754 [Lumley 1, 2009]
The standard also includes dimension controls to ensure that the maximum size of
children that can use one CRS category fits to the minimum size of the next CRS
category.
A concept Group I CRS addressing numerous misuse cases by technical solutions
was presented in [Müller et al., 2009] (Figure 14). The diagonal part of the vehicle
seat belt has to be routed through the correct upper belt guide clamp of the CRS and
the clamp has to be closed. The detection of the correct belt path and the appropriate
belt tensions is managed by spring-loaded levers with integrated push buttons on
both sides of the belt guide clamp. The control of the installation direction of the CRS
and the upright position is supported by push buttons at the back of the CRS. These
push buttons ensure the regularly installation of the CRS according to the backrest of
the vehicle seat.
77/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 14: Concept Group I CRS [Müller et al., 2009]
Large turning handles on both sides of the CRS allow an easier tensioning of the
integrated harness system. The new harness tensioning device allows a better
positioning of the user and a reduced operation force for a correct tensioning. A
haptic feedback will indicate the correct harness tension as soon as an integrated
slipping clutch detects sufficient belt force (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Harness tensioning and buckle control [Müller et al., 2009]
The correct position of the shoulder harness is also controlled. The angle between
the shoulder harness and the back of the seat is observed by two accelerometers,
one on the backrest of the CRS and one on the upper part of the shoulder harness
(Figure 16). A miniature switch inside the buckle of the integrated harness connected
to a sound interface gives a warning, if the child unbuckles during a trip.
78/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 16: Harness Position Control [Müller et al., 2009]
To make it possible for consumers to check whether a CRS was exposed to an
accident, a very thin conductor with a small weight was attached to the back of the
CRS. The conductor will break after a certain level of acceleration is reached and
give a visible indication on the possible exposure to an accident (Figure 17).
Figure 17: Accident Exposure [Müller et al. 2009]
Information on mistakes during the installation process is given to the user via a LCdisplay. An interface like this display can give a direct feedback to the consumer
about a misuse and can offer information on the solution (Figure 18).
79/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 18: Information display acc. to [Müller et al., 2009]
For ISOFIX CRS using a Top Tether as anti-rotation device, [Gallegos et al., 2010]
describes the design of a global indicator for both, ISOFIX connector and Top Tether
fixation. The Top Tether includes an elastic indicator, which is adjusted to the correct
tension of the tether. The elastic indicator is connected to the central positioner of
both ISOFIX connectors of the CRS. All three anchorages, both ISOFIX connectors
and the Top Tether have to be correctly attached to the vehicle to receive a positive
visual indication of correct installation (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Global Indicator for ISOFIX and Top Tether Control [Gallegos et al., 2010]
[Truckenbrodt, 2005] shows the possibilities for integrated CRS for Group I up to
Group III. For Group I CRS an integrated booster is used with an additional side
headrest, which is also used for the booster CRS. The side rest of the integrated
CRS can be a separate feature that has to be attached to the vehicle seat or it can
be an integrated part of the vehicle seat (Figure 20). The harness system for the
Group 1 CRS is covered by the seat cushion during a travel with adults or older
children. The cover is moved downward to use the harness system. Integrated Group
80/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
I CRS are seen able to avoid misuse due to their ease of installation and non-use
due to their permanent availability.
Figure 20: Integrated CRS for Group I [Truckenbrodt, 2005]
The possibility of the implementation of a pretensioner in the harness system of a
Group I CRS was demonstrated by [Martinez et al., 2011]. A prototype of a
pretensioner and load limiter was developed and tested (Figure 21). The pretensioner
showed a potential to reduce the harness slack in case of a frontal impact. The
implementation of the system is seen possible for all harness systems.
Figure 21: Prototype Pretensioner and Load Limiter for Harness System CRS
[Martinez et al., 2011]
The child seat presence and orientation detection (CPOD ISOcare) was
demonstrated by [Brämig, 2006]. Using CPOD the presence and orientation (forward
or rearward facing) of a CRS equipped with the defined resonators can be detected
on a vehicle seat with adequate sensors (Figure 22). The gathered information can
be used for the passenger airbag deactivation for rearward facing CRS on the
passenger seat. Additionally the information can be used to address individualized
strategies for safety systems for different CRS types. CPOD is able to give feedback
on the correct positioning of a CRS.
81/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 22: Child Seat Presence and Orientation Detection [Brämig, 2006]
10.2 Improvements for booster CRS
Integrated CRS as a solution for the misuse and non-use that occurs with booster
CRS or children that should use booster CSR is described in [Truckenbrodt, 2005],
[Bohman et al., 2006], [Boyraz et al., 2007], [Jakobsson et al. 2007] and [L.
Jakobsson et al., 2009]. In [Bohman et al., 2006] and [L. Jakobsson et al., 2009] it is
seen, that booster seats integrated in the vehicle are more accepted by the children
(less childish). This could increase the use of boosters for older children from an age
of 8 years on. Additionally the handling of integrated boosters was seen easy and
fast. So the correct usage of the booster could be increased. [Jakobsson et al. 2007]
shows the possibility of 2-stage booster cushions with a high position for smaller
children up to a height of 1.20 m and a lower position for the taller children (Figure
23). The 2-stages approach allows a better thigh support for a more upright seating
position. The increased height and the booster designed together with the vehicle
allow the children to participate in the safety benefits of the car related safety
systems.
Figure 23: 2-stage booster cushion [Jakobsson et al. 2007]
[Truckenbrodt, 2005] describes the possibility of not only integrated boosters but also
integrated side protection, as described above (Figure 20). Additionally the booster
cushion can improve the lap belt position by cut outs (Figure 24). The advantages of
integrated booster are seen in the easy handling and the possibility of the
82/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
implementation of car related safety devices due to the adaptive use of existing
restraint systems. Seat belt reminder can be integrated as well as Pre-safe
monitoring and the driver information system.
Figure 24: Integrated CRS with cut out for improved lap belt routing [Truckenbrodt, 2005]
In [Boyraz et al., 2007] the concept of a self-adjusting integrated child restraint
system is demonstrated. The child (or adult) is detected by a webcam. After several
image processing steps, the actual height of the occupant is distinguished. According
to the height measurement the seating height is adapted to the correct position by a
motor driven mechanical system. Based on an anthropometric database the seat is
adjusted to the best position for the use of the 3-point belt system for this specific
occupant. The system adjusts the height and the side protection (Figure 25).
Figure 25: Self-adjusting Integrated Child Restraint System [Boyraz et al., 2007]
Harness systems and lap belt positioning devices can be used on the Australian
market in addition to the booster seat. [Lumley 2, 2009] shows different possibilities
were the harness system restrains the upper part of the body and stays in position
even if the child moves during the travel. An additional lap belt positioning device,
attached to the booster shall keep the lap belt of the vehicle and also a harness
system correctly positioned to avoid submarining (Figure 26 ).
83/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 26: Harness systems and lap belt positioning devises [Lumley 2, 2009]
[Johannsen et al., 2010] analyzed the vehicle rear seats to get an impression
whether it could be possible to modify these seats in a way, that could allow children
(aged 6 years and above) to use the 3-point seatbelt only. The use of pre-tensioner
and seat ramps and the modification of the belt anchorage points could lead to rear
seas that could be used by taller children without CRS. A problem that was not
addressed was the incompatibility between the thigh length of children and the length
of the seat cushion. The cushion is too long for the legs of children from an age of 6
years and above.
Table 14 summarizes the identified technical solutions and improvements with regard
to the misuse addressed by the features.
Table 14: Addressed misuse per misuse type and CRS group/ type
CRS type
misuse 1
misuse 2
misuse3
Harness not
Installed forward facing
Group 0/ 0+ Incorrect seatbelt route
sufficiently tightened even if not designed for
(rearward
it
facing infant
- Child Seat Presence
- Concept Group I CRS
- Audible and visible
carrier)
( transfer to Group 0/0+
needed ) [Müller et al.,
2009]
Incorrect seatbelt route
multi
(unclear instructions
directional
and labelling)
(convertible)
harness tension
indicator [Bendjellal
et al., 2006],
[Bendjellal et al.,
2007], [Bendjellal,
2008]
- Harness
pretensioner (tested
for Group 1 CRS,
transfer to Group
0/0+needed)
[Martinez et al.,
2011]
- Concept Group I
CRS ( transfer to
Group 0/0+ needed
) [Müller et al.,
2009]
Mainly installed
forward facing
and Orientation
Detection [Brämig,
2006]
- Concept Group I CRS
( transfer to Group 0/0+
needed ) [Müller et al.,
2009]
Harness not sufficiently
tightened
84/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
CRS type
misuse 1
-
misuse 2
Concept Group I CRS ( designed for fwd only,
transfer to convertibles
needed ) [Müller et al.,
2009]
Incorrect seatbelt route
forward
facing
Group I
-
Markings on the CRS
related to the head or
shoulder height
[Lumley, 2009]
- Audible and visible
harness tension
indicator [Bendjellal
et al., 2006],
[Bendjellal et al.,
2007], [Bendjellal,
2008]
- Harness pretensioner
(for fwd) [Martinez et
al., 2011]
- Concept Group I CRS
[Müller et al., 2009]
Harness not
Used too early (for
sufficiently tightened children from 6 months)
and left also too early
for booster seats
ISOFIX with TT and
indicator [Gallegos et al.,
2010]
Concept Group I CRS
[Müller et al., 2009]
Integrated Group I CRS
[Truckenbrodt, 2005]
-
Audible and visible
harness tension
indicator [Bendjellal
et al., 2006],
[Bendjellal et al.,
2007], [Bendjellal,
2008]
Harness pretensioner
[Martinez et al., 2011]
- Concept Group I CRS
[Müller et al., 2009]
Group II and Seatbelt under the arm Incorrect seatbelt
(during driving phase)
route
Group III
(booster
seats;
booster
cushions)
seatbelt - Avoidance of discomfort - Additional Harness
-
misuse3
by integrated CRS
[Bohman et al., 2006],
[Boyraz et al., 2007],
[Jakobsson et al. 2007],
[ Jakobsson et al.,
2009], [Truckenbrodt,
2005]
Additional Harness
systems and lap belt
positioning devises
[Lumley 1, 2009]
Markings on the CRS
related to the head or
shoulder height [Lumley
2, 2009]
Geometrical
incompatibility (head
restraint, form of
cushion, buckles
position,…)
slack in seat belt
-
systems and lap belt
positioning devises
[Lumley 1, 2009]
-
-
Integrated CRS
[Bohman et al., 2006],
[Boyraz et al., 2007],
[Jakobsson et al. 2007],
[ Jakobsson et al.,
2009], [Truckenbrodt,
2005]
Additional Harness
systems and lap belt
positioning devises
[Lumley 1, 2009]
Optimized rear seats
also for children from an
age of 6 years and
above (only for taller
children) [Johannsen et
al., 2010]
Several technical solutions and concepts exist, addressing different problems of
misuse. More or less simple indicators can support the correct restraining of the child
or the installation of ISOFIX systems. Additional sensors can enable the control of the
installation, installation direction and the restraining of a child. Not only for booster
85/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
seats vehicle integrated CRS are seen to be a possibility to reduce mistakes during
the installation and to reduce the non use for older children. Most of these ideas will
not fully avoid misuse, but they seem to be able to support users that are interested
in the safety of the children in cars, to secure the child in a correct way.
86/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
11
Integrated CRS
During the last years, most car manufacturers provided integrated CRS as add on for
a while, but the option is no longer available in all of the vehicles. An internet search
was conducted to gather experience about the manufacturers that offer integrated
CRS, the available CRS Groups and the implementation in the vehicle. Based on
this, different car dealers were contacted to receive more information on the systems.
At the moment five manufacturers have the possibility to order integrated CRS for
some vehicle models. The different options are summarized in Table 15.
Table 15: Integrated CRS by Manufacturer
CRS Group
Manufacturer 1
(Ma1)
Group I/ II/ III
Manufacturer 2
(Ma2)
Manufacturer 3
(Ma3)
Manufacturer 4
(Ma4)
Manufacturer 5
(Ma5)
Additional Equipment
Group II/ III
Side head rest
with belt guidance
- Impact shield for
Group I
- Side head rest
-
Group II/ III
_____________
-
Group II/ III
(Two stage
booster)
Group II/ III
_____________
-
-
Side head rest
-
______________
-
Group II
-
Possible
Seating
Position
- Both rear
outboard
positions
Both rear
outboard
positions
Rear mid
position
Both rear
outboard
positions
Both rear
outboard
positions
Both rear
outboard
positions
Manufacturer 1 (Ma1) offers integrated CRS for different vehicle models for Group I/
II/ III. For CRS Groups I and II an additional side head rest with fixed belt guidance
has to be mounted to the vehicle head rest bars (Figure 27). For Group III the side
head rest is optional. The middle part of the vehicle seat is moved upwards as a
booster. The remaining part of the vehicle seat base is built as a footrest. Using the
integrated CRS as a Group I CRS, additionally the appropriate impact shield is
needed. According to the manual, the manufacturer recommends not to use the
integrated CRS with impact shield before the child has weight of 12.5 kg or above.
The impact shield could not be demonstrated at the local car dealers. Integrated CRS
are available for both rear outboard seats. The costs for two integrated CRS are
about 400 Euro with one side head rest. An additional side head rest would cost
approx. 130 Euro.
87/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 27: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 1
The integrated booster offered by manufacturer 2 (Ma2) is available in some vehicle
models and variants for both rear outboard seats. The complete upper part of the
vehicle seat cushion is moved upwards as a booster. The booster provides additional
side support for the thigh. Additionally side head rests are part of the “Integrated
CRS” package. There was no vehicle equipped with integrated CRS available at the
local car dealers. The costs for an “Integrated CRS package” including two integrated
boosters and the corresponding side head rests are approx. 480 Euro.
Two different solutions are in the portfolio of manufacturer 3 (Ma3). In some vehicle
models an integrated booster is included as standard equipment (Figure 28). This
Group II/ III booster is implemented at the rear mid position. The cushion of the
middle seat is moved upwards as booster. According to the labelling this booster can
be used for weight between 15 kg and 36 kg and a height between 97 cm and 137
cm.
Figure 28: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 3 (rear mid position)
88/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
At Ma3 for some vehicle models and variants it is a possibility to equip the vehicle
with two integrated two-stage boosters (Group II/ III) on both rear outboard seats
(Figure 29). This booster type can be locked at two different heights. The
manufacturer recommends using the upper position for children with a height
between 95 cm and 120 cm and a weight between 15 kg and 25 kg. The lower
position of the booster is meant for children with a weight between 22 and 36kg and a
height between 115cm and 140cm. No vehicle with integrated two stage boosters
was available at local car dealers. The costs for a “Family-Package” including two
integrated two-stage boosters are approx. 300 Euro.
Figure 29: Integrated two-stage CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 3
For some models manufacturer 4 provides the possibility to equip the vehicle with
two integrated CRS Group II/ III in the second row outboard (Figure 30). Additional
side head rests are recommended to be used. The vehicle seat cushion is moved
upwards as booster. The side wings of the cushion can be lifted to give some side
support for the thighs. Cut outs at the booster cushion are made to improve the lap
belt position. No vehicle equipped with integrated CRS was available at the local
dealers. According to the labelling the CRS is recommended for children between
15kg and 36kg. The costs for one integrated CRS are approx. 225 Euro.
89/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 30: Integrated CRS Group II/ III Manufacturer 4
Manufacturer 5 offers two integrated Group II booster CRS as standard equipment
for some models (Figure 31). The middle part of the vehicle seat cushion is moved
upwards as a booster which According to the manual, the booster is designed for
children between: 22kg and 39kg and between: 119cm and 145cm. The remaining
part of the vehicle seat cushion is designed as a footrest.
Figure 31: Integrated CRS Group II and Labelling Manufacturer 5
With the exemption of Ma3 it is difficult for the consumer to gather information on the
integrated CRS on the internet about the availability of integrated CRS depending on
the vehicle models and variants. Also information about the approved ECE R44
Groups, possible additional equipment and recommendations about the usage from
the manufacturers’ side are at most times not easily receivable, even at the car
dealership. Only Ma3 added the information that the integrated CRS would allow the
children to participate from the vehicle related safety devices. Not all car dealers
offered the possibility to test the integrated CRS on-site.
90/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
11.1 Handling Dummies
An evaluation of the integrated CRS was conducted using handling dummies.
Handling dummies were developed during the European Project NPACS Phase 1
(New Programme for the Assessment of Child Seats) for misuse and handling tests.
They are meant to assess the dimensions and the belt routing of child restraints. The
definition of the dimensions of the handling dummies was done according to the
weight limits of ECE R44. The only exemption is the 150cm dummy. The dimensions
of this dummy are related to the maximum height of the children that should use a
CRS according to Directive 2003/20/EC. The dimensions of the full set of handling
dummies are illustrated in Table 16.
Table 16: Dimensions of the Handling Dummies
Name
N9
N13
N15
N18
N25
9
13
15
18
25
Percentile
50th
50th
5th
50th
50th
50th
Standing
Height [mm]
Seating
Height [mm]
Approx.
Related Age
708
900
850
1080
1250
1500
450
541
515
602
686
775
9 month
1.5 years
small
3 years
large
3 years
6 years
12 years
Weight [kg]
N150
From the identified vehicle makes and models, only three were available with
integrated CRS at local dealerships. Ma1 had one model available with an integrated
CRS Group II/ III and the additional side head rest. The additional impact shield for
the Group I CRS was not available. The local dealer of Ma2 did not have a vehicle
model with integrated CRS in their showrooms, same for Ma4. For the rear mid
positioned integrated CRS of Ma3 a demonstration was possible. The booster was
not assessed with handling dummies, because easy access could not be granted at
this time. The integrated booster of Ma5 was available and assed with the handling
dummies.
11.1.1 Ma1 – Integrated Booster with Side Head Rest
According to ECE R44 the integrated booster (Group II/ III) can be used for children
with a weight from 15kg up to 36kg. The impact shield that has to be used for Group I
was not available. The assessment was conducted with the handling dummies N15,
N18 und N25.
The booster was easy to move up and to lock. The pictograms on the side head rest
were easy to understand and indicators on both side of the head rest showed
whether the side head rest was correctly attached (Figure 32). Also the restraining of
the handling dummies was clear and easy. The belt guidance in the side head rest
was used.
91/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 32: Side Head Rest Ma1 – Pictograms and Indicator
Positioning the 15kg N15 Dummy (Figure 33), which is the lower end of the ECE R44
Group II, it can be seen, that the booster cushion is too long for a comfortable seating
position. The knees of the dummy cannot be bent and the footrest can’t be used. The
belt routing is too close to the neck of the dummy due to the fixed upper belt
guidance. The lap belt routing is sufficient.
Figure 33: N15 Handling Dummy (15kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1
The 18 kg N18 handling dummy, which is the upper end of an ECE R44 Group I CRS
and in the middle of an ECE R44 Group II CRS can be positioned well in the
integrated CRS of Ma1 (Figure 34). The belt routing is good; the feet of the dummy
can be comfortably put on the footrest.
92/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 34: N18 Handling Dummy (18kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1
The width of the booster cushion is still ok, but could lead to discomfort during longer
trips (Figure 35).
Figure 35: Remaining booster width using N18 on Ma1 booster (right and left side)
From 22kg to 36kg (Group III) the side impact head rest is not mandatory. The N25
handling dummy, which is the upper limit of an ECE R44 Group II CRS and in the
frame of a Group III CRS, was positioned with and without side head rest. The
booster cushion is long enough for this dummy; the footrest could be used, but not
comfortably. The upper belt guidance of the side head rest is too low for the N25; the
belt routing is incorrect using the side head rest (Figure 36).
93/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 36: N25 Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 (with side head rest)
Due to the D-ring adjuster the belt routing can be optimised for the N25 dummy
without side head rest (Figure 37).
Figure 37: N25 Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II/ III Ma1 (without side head rest)
The remaining width of the booster cushion with the N25 is marginal (Figure 38).
Figure 38: Remaining booster width using N25 on Ma1 booster (right and left side)
94/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
11.1.2 Ma3 – Integrated Booster at the Rear Mid Seat
The integrated rear mid seat booster of Ma3 was available at the local dealer. Due to
the external circumstances it was not possible to evaluate this CRS with the handling
dummies.
The integrated booster on the rear mid seat of Ma3 can be easily moved upwards
and locked in this position. The booster cushion consists of the complete mid seat,
therefore it was wider than the cushion from Ma1 (Figure 39). This CRS does not
have upper belt guidance and the remaining part of the vehicle seat is not specially
designed as a footrest. The D-ring position is not adjustable.
Figure 39: Integrated Booster Ma3 – rear mid seat
11.1.3 Ma5 – Integrated Booster
The integrated booster of manufacturer Ma5 is, according to the labelling an ECE
R44 Group II booster for children between 15 and 25kg. Therefore the N15 (15kg),
the N18 (18kg) and the N25 (25kg) handling dummies were used to evaluate the
CRS. According to the vehicle manual the maximum height for children using the
booster should be 145cm. The N150 (150cm) was used to compare the seating
positions for larger children with and without booster. The vehicle handbook
recommends the use of the booster for children with a weight of 22kg up to 39kg and
a length of 119cm to 145cm.
The booster was easy to move up and lock. Also the restraining of the dummies was
clear and easy.
The N15 dummy is the lower end of the ECE R 44 Group II CRS but with a standing
height of 85cm and a weight of 15kg the use is not recommended in the vehicle
handbook. The booster cushion is too long for the thighs. The knees cannot be bent
and the footrest can not be used (Figure 40). There is no upper belt guidance and the
95/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
D-ring is not adjustable, therefore the diagonal part of the belt is not well routed and
is close to the neck. The lap belt routing is sufficient.
Figure 40: N15 Handling Dummy (15kg) – CRS Group II Ma5
The N18 handling dummy is in the middle of the weight class of an ECE R44 Group
II CRS but not recommended in the vehicle handbook of Ma5. The dummy fits well
on the CRS, the thighs are fully supported by the booster cushion and the footrest
could be used. The belt routing is ok (Figure 41).
Figure 41: N18 Handling Dummy (18kg) – CRS Group II Ma5
With 25kg and a standing height of 125cm, the N25 handling dummy represents the
upper end of an ECE R 44 Group II CRS user and is also in the range of weight and
height recommendation according to the vehicle handbook. The positioning of the
dummy is good. The thighs are still supported by the booster cushion and the belt
routing is good (Figure 42). The footrest could be used.
96/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 42: Handling Dummy (25kg) – CRS Group II Ma5
Looking at the width of the booster, there is still space remaining with the N25, but
there is no side support (Figure 43).
Figure 43: Remaining booster width using N25 on Ma5 booster (left and right side)
Figure 44 and Figure 45 compare the seating position of the N150 with a height of
150cm with and without the integrated CRS. The handling dummy represents the
maximum height limit for CRS use according to Directive 2003/20/EC. The dummy is
not in the limits of ECE R44 Group II and the usage is not recommended in the
vehicle handbook. The belt routing is good. The booster cushion only supports half of
the thighs, the position is not comfortable. Using the back seat without the integrated
CRS the belt routing is sufficient. The thighs are well supported by the seat cushion.
97/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 44: Handling Dummy (150cm) – CRS Group II Ma5
Figure 45: Handling Dummy (150cm) – without CRS
11.2 Summary
Integrated CRS do not seem to be a strong marketing argument. For most
manufacturers there is little information available on the first view. Even consumers
that are already interested in integrated CRS could gather problems to collect all
important information. It is not always possible to have a test run with integrated CRS
at the local dealer.
Five manufacturers offer integrated CRS. The prices are between standard
equipment for specific models and variants up to 530 Euro for two integrated booster
seats (both with side head rests).
The integrated CRS and equipment versions are summarised in Table 17.
98/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 17: Integrated CRS – Systems and Observations
CRS
Group
Manufacturer Group I/
1 (Ma1)
II/ III
Additional
Equipment
Possible
Seating
Position
Side head rest
with belt
guidance
Both
 Booster cushion:
rear
middle part of
outboard
vehicle seat
positions  Side head rest
attached to the head
rest bars;
attachment indicator
 Fixed belt guidance
 Adjustable D-ring
 Side head rest
mandatory for Group
I and Group II
Both
 Booster cushion:
rear
complete upper part
outboard
of the vehicle seat
positions  Thigh side support
 Separate side head
rest
Rear
 Booster cushion:
mid
middle seat cushion
position
Impact shield for
Group I
Manufacturer Group II/
2 (Ma2)
III
Side head rest
Manufacturer Group II/
3 (Ma3)
III
_____________
Group II/
III
(Two
stage
_____________
System description
Both
 Booster cushion:
rear
upper part of the
outboard
vehicle seat
positions  Two height stages of
Additional
recommendations
from the vehicle
manufacturer
Group I CRS with
impact shield
should not be
used for a child
below 12.5kg
Side head rest
optional for Group
III
Price
Observations and remarks
Approx. 400 € for
two integrated
CRS with one
side head rest
 Easy adjustment of the booster and
side head rest
 Footrest
 Easy fixation of the child
 Width of the booster is very small
 No side support for the thighs
 N15 handling dummy does not fit
well
 Adjustable D-ring allows good belt
routing also for the taller children
Additional side
head rest approx.
130 €
Impact shield
unknown
Not known
Approx. 480€ for
 CRS not available at local
two integrated
dealership
boosters with side
head rests
For children of a
height between
97cm and 137cm
One booster
standard in some
vehicle models
and versions
Upper booster
position for
children between:
15kg and 22kg
Approx. 300€ for
two integrated
two-stage booster
 CRS not assessed with handling
dummies
 No D-ring adjustment, no belt
guidance
 No side support of the thighs or
head
 Sufficient width of the booster
 CRS not available at local
dealership
99/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
CRS
Group
Additional
Equipment
booster)
Manufacturer Group II/
4 (Ma4)
III
Manufacturer Group II
5 (Ma5)
Possible
Seating
Position
System description
the booster for
children of different
weight and height
Both
 Booster cushion:
rear
complete upper part
outboard
of the vehicle seat
positions  Thigh side support
 Separate side head
rest
 Cut outs for lap belt
position
Both
 Booster cushion:
______________ rear
middle part of
outboard
vehicle seat
positions
Side head rest
Additional
recommendations
from the vehicle
manufacturer
95cm and 120cm
Lower booster
position for
children between:
22kg and 36kg
115cm and
140cm
Not known
According to the
manual, booster
is designed for
children between:
22kg and 39kg
119cm and
145cm
Price
Observations and remarks
One CRS approx.
225€
 CRS not available at local
dealership
One booster
standard in some
vehicle models
and versions








Easy adjustment of the booster
Footrest
Easy fixation of the child
No D-ring adjustment, no belt
guidance
No side support of the thighs or
head
Sufficient width of the booster
Weight and height limits of the
labelled approved ECE R44 Group
and the manual do not comply
N15 handling dummy does not fit
well
100/189
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The usage of handling dummies for the assessment of integrated CRS, to control the
belt routing and additional equipment related to the integrated CRS was successful.
In both assessed integrated CRS systems it was seen, that the N15 dummy was too
small. The dummy is within the range of a Group II CRS, but also within the rage of a
Group I CRS. Unfortunately the Group I integrated CRS of Ma1 could not be
assessed. The belt routing can be sufficiently supported by an upper belt guidance
and/or an adjustable D-ring. A side support for the thigh seems to be useful for
comfort reasons which could lead to “out of position” misuse. Not all CRS have side
head rests. For comfort and positioning reasons and for the side protection, they can
be seen as a necessary and useful add-on. In case they are not needed for safety
reasons, the vehicle manufacturer should state that the children are protected by the
vehicle related safety systems. It is seen problematic, that according to the Directive
2003/20/EC a child up to a height of 150cm should use a CRS, whereas some
manufacturers recommend the usage of the integrated booster to a height below
that.
All assessed integrated CRS were easy to handle. For the N18 and N25 handling
dummies a sufficient or good belt routing was found.
101
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
12 EXPERT EVALUATION OF SAFETY DEVICES AND DETECTED
PROBLEMS
One of the main objectives of this report is to provide solutions for problems,
detected in the transportation of children in cars. For this purpose, a large list of
problems was defined by the child safety experts of the CASPER consortium, as
follows:



Description of the problem
Safety issues as a result of the problem
Source/justification of the problems
However, as it is very difficult to address every single problem separately, the
problems had to be grouped. A working group of child safety experts from the
CASPER consortium identified several issues and classified them in five different
groups:





Social and cultural
Law and regulation
CRS-Car interface
Research
Misuse and CRS technical issues
12.1 Social and cultural
From the social and cultural point of view, there are several problems with child
safety that occur with the transportation of children in vehicles. Studies detected a
high rate of inappropriate CRS usage, which can result in a decrease in the critical
safety level. Some of the reasons for this are the high price of the CRS and the
unconsciousness among the users of the increase in safety that CRS provide.
For a psychological reason for the inappropriate CRS usage, it can be considered
that some of the children feel ashamed of using a CRS. This psychological
discomfort or shame on using a CRS is also a consequence of the lack of school
information as the school lessons are not focused on safety in cars. This fact can
also influence in the children’s convenience that using CRS is not necessary if you
are tall or strong enough.
Moreover, neglecting the importance of using CRS, when transporting children in
cars, contributes to the lack of parents’ awareness on safety in cars and safety
knowledge in general. The CEDRE results show that the level of knowledge has an
important influence on the quality of the use of CRS.
This unawareness about the necessity of using CRS applies for both the children
and the parents. This general lack of knowledge is increased by the medical
professionals, who sometimes do not give advice for safety actions when
transporting children in cars. As the medical professionals are considered as an
102
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
important source of information by the parents in terms of child health prevention, not
giving advice is considered as child safety in vehicles being unimportant. This issue
is a consequence of the lack of communication between the medical and the
automotive/road safety administrations.
Furthermore, the scientific data for rearward facing transportation is regularly in
contradiction with the one provided by doctors’ advice that new born children have to
travel in a lying position. The result of this is confusion in parents and influences in
the fact that new born children are not always transported in rear infant carriers, as
they should be.
A well known fact is that it takes years for the new technical solutions to appear at
the market and the parents’ awareness of the improvement in terms of safety, as
well as in the correct usage of the product, is extremely low in the first years of the
products’ application. This fact is reflected in many field studies or surveys (see
CASPER, CEDRE) when analysing the small number of parents using ISOFIX,
which was the feedback received from the surveys.
Another sociological and cultural problem is that children have a different opinion
about how they should be transported, compared to the adults’ statements. This
problem is reflected in the criteria for the CRS choice. Experience shows that the
childrens criteria, that is usually based on appearance and comfort, takes part in the
CRS choice and aspects like colour or design of the CRS become more important
than safety. This fact leads to difference in the parents’ criteria and the one that child
safety experts have on CRS. That is why the most recommended CRS are rarely
seen on surveys, which include the most used ones.
On the other hand, it also has to be considered that CRS are expensive and this can
lead to the purchase of a less safe CRS and even to some types of misuse (not
appropriate usage of the CRS).
The fact that children have a different opinion of the way they are transported
compared to adults’ statements can also result in bad buckling of the child.
Sometimes, in order to satisfy the kids, the parents leave the children to buckle
themselves. The same reason causes the wrong children’s positioning as they are
feeling uncomfortable in long journeys.
It is important that the children get used to being restrained so when they travel they
require to be restrained. By the way, once restrained, children are not expressing
their opinion on whether they are correctly restrained or not.
In some cultures, the parents wish their children to be older or bigger and sometimes
give them more responsibilities. This can lead to a CRS system switch too early and
cause an inappropriate usage.
Experience shows that some parents prefer to watch their children and interact with
them during a trip. Additionally, parents usually sit them in the front seat for cultural
reasons. These two facts result in using rearward facing CRS, which are installed in
the front row without deactivating the passenger’s airbag, the rearward facing CRS
103
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
are installed forward facing or the rearward facing systems are less used and
parents switch to forward facing as soon as possible.
It is also common that the parents do not receive enough information and/or advice
in specialized shops and this contributes to the lack of information that the parents
have. This leads to, as mentioned above, change in the priorities and having less
important criteria (in terms of safety) when choosing a CRS.
This lack of information also makes parents believe that rearward facing or shield
systems are not safe and their usage is not widely spread among the consumers.
The small amount of information provided to the parents can also cause mistakes in
the CRS installation, most of the times with second hand CRS.
Finally, comfort and safety are two concepts that rarely go together. When feeling
uncomfortable, children usually change position and this results in situations like
having the seatbelt under the arm or behind the back. This also is related with the
slack in the harness: the tighter, the safer, but this is also less comfortable.
12.2 Law and regulation
Parents and Carers should always consult information from road safety
organisations in their own country for the most up to date information regarding local
laws.
It is difficult to evaluate the effects of the policies in the CRS usage. Also, the details
of the CRS policy vary across the different countries. The following Table 18
summarizes the European policies regarding the CRS usage per countries.
Table 18: European policies on CRS usage per country
Country
Belgium
Current law
Mandatory for children
under 135 cm high
France
Mandatory for children
up to 10 years old.
Mandatory for children
up to12 years old and
shorter than 150cm
Mandatory for children
less than 135cm high
Germany
Greece
Italy
Mandatory for children
up to 150cm high
Netherlands Mandatory for children
up to 135cm high and
Exceptions
Enforcement
Taxis and vehicles for more than Penalty up to 50€
8 passengers; Two CRS already
installed; Sometimes: short
distance plus the parents are not
travelling with the children.
None
No information
provided
None
Penalties from 30€
to 50€
Travelling in taxis
Taxis
If in the car there are already
two CRS.
104
Penalties up to 80€
and up to 7 points
on the license.
Penalties between
74 and 300€ and up
to 5 points on the
license
Penalties around
100€
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Poland
Spain
Sweden
UK
under 18 years old
Mandatory for children
up to 12 years old and
less than 150cm.
Mandatory for children
until 135cm high.
Mandatory for children
until 135cm high.
Mandatory for children
less than 135cm high and
younger than 12 years old
Taxis and emergency service
cars.
Penalties around 30€
Travelling in taxis
Information not
provided.
Information not
provided.
Penalties from £30
to £500
None
Travelling in taxis or private
hire cars.
As it is shown in Table 18, in some countries the age is a parameter to take into
account when considering the policies regarding the usage of CRS but the CRS are
sorted by groups depending on weight and height.
Even if the regulation is severe, sometimes the lack of resources, the
permissiveness from the police or the lack of knowledge makes the control difficult.
Another aspect that is not considered within any of the regulations is the harness
tension. Nowadays there is not any system capable of showing the level of harness
tension in order to regulate and control it. Also, it can be helpful for the parents in
order to avoid misuse.
It is believed that a lot of road users follow the regulations not in order to increase
the safety, but to avoid being fined. Child regulations are not an exception.
Finally, even if the regulations are sometimes loose and not very strict, there is the
possibility that the development of safer systems is limited by those regulations.
12.3 CRS-Car interface
CRS and cars are usually not designed by the same manufacturers and even if the
CRS is as universal as possible, sometimes the interaction car-CRS causes several
problems.
The interior car geometry directly interacts with the CRS. For rearward CRS a long
seatbelt routing is needed and sometimes the seatbelt length can cause a problem.
Also the seatbelt anchorages are sometimes geometrically incompatible with the
CRS.
But the main problem when considering the direct interaction inside the car is the
backrest and the cushion geometry. The contact between the CRS backrest and the
car seat backrest is critical for the good performance in case of an accident. This
contact can be disturbed by bad compatibility between the two backrests, but also by
the headrest.
The cushion interaction with the CRS base is also a source of problems. The bad
compatibility between the cushion and the base can cause instability or bad
105
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
positioning. This interaction is critical when the CRS is installed in the centre seat of
the back row.
The last aspects mentioned can cause bad interaction with the curtain airbags and
decrease the safety level in case of an accident. Additionally, another important point
in the CRS-car compatibility is the usage of relatively new safety systems like
ISOFIX or Top tether.
Even in Europe, ISOFIX is not available in all of the cars. For Top tether, the
situation is even worse as it is a newer technology. Even if the car has ISOFIX
anchorages installed, it is possible that it is not compatible with the CRS ISOFIX.
Also, the ISOFIX anchorages are usually hidden and sometimes it is difficult to
access them.
The Top tether system has the same problems but in a higher level because there
are even less cars that have Top tether and the anchorages are even more difficult
to locate.
There is also a Top tether replacement system, known as support leg. The support
leg does not have the problems that the Top tether has, but it has a lot of
compatibility problems as a result of the car-floor interaction. The different heights in
the cars and the different floor shapes make it more difficult to design a universal
support leg and many compatibility issues appear when installing the support leg in
certain cars.
12.4 Research
Concerning child safety in cars, several constraints and problems appear. First of all,
it has to be considered that any reconstruction or test that can be performed in a lab
is based on estimations and hypothesis of what can happen in a real accident. As
known, dummies are used to get information about the occupants but they cannot
measure all the phenomena that occur in a real crash. The human body modelling is
an extremely complex activity and only some of the data captured is reliable.
Additionally, the lack of knowledge in child biomechanics makes it more difficult for
the investigation considering accidents involving children and child safety in cars in
general.
Finally, two more aspects have to be taken into account. First, the driving behaviour
may change when travelling with children in the vehicle and there is little information
about this. Also, the child positioning before an accident is completely unknown and
is probable to be far from the most desirable concerning the CRS design.
12.5 Misuse and CRS technical issues
A large amount of the problems mentioned in the previous sub-sections come from
misuse problems. A misuse can also be a result of a bad CRS design. Some
technical issues regarding the CRS designs have been detected.
106
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In side impact tests, for instance, the bad adjustability of the high back booster head
rest may cause severe injuries in older children. However, these results are usually
better compared to side testing using boosters without a high back. In these cases
the children are not supported and the level of the protection offered is very low.
In high back boosters, the friction between the seatbelt and the routing parts can
cause a slack between the seatbelt and the child’s chest, which increases the
forward body movement and results in more severe injuries in the case of an
accident.
Regarding the other CRS groups, the difficulties with the belt routing, for example in
group I, it can cause wrong seatbelt routing and, consequently, the increase of the
risk of injuries. Also, the friction between the routing parts and the seatbelt can cause
a seatbelt slack in the CRS restraint. This fact increases the forward movement
during an impact and therefore increases the injury risk.
Finally, it has to be taken into account that the parents are the final users and some
misuse can be a direct consequence of their actions or inactions. For example, a
common misuse is not to guide the seatbelt in the group III belt routing, which has
several negative effects, one of which is the so-called submarining. This
phenomenon highly increases the risk of injuries in the case of an accident.
107
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
13 CHILD SAFETY SOLUTIONS
Several different possible solutions for the five main groups of problems were found.
Some of these proposed solutions had similarities and that is why they were
separated into five main groups: Technical, Innovations, Accessories and add-ons,
Anti-escape devices and Adaptations for children with special health care needs.
Then, these solutions were assessed in terms of strengths and weaknesses, related
to the child safety provided by the proposal. This evaluation was carried out by the
child safety in cars’ experts in the CASPER consortium.
The different assessments of one solution had to be correlated, in order to have the
overall evaluation of the proposal. For this reason, a scoring of each strength and
weakness was made. The strengths were positively scored from 1 to 6, where 6
means highly related to the safety of children in cars. In the same way, the
weaknesses were scored negatively from -1 to -6. Additionally, a score of 0 was
given to some of the assessments. This value represents an assessment that is not
related positively or negatively to the child’s safety in cars. Figure 46 shows the
relationship between the group of problems and the group of solutions.
Figure 46: Groups of solutions for the groups of problems
13.1 Technical solutions
The approved proposed solutions that are CRS or can be a part of such were
grouped in technical solutions. There are 10 proposals in this group that were
assessed and scored. It was decided that these 10 solutions represent the technical
solutions’ group very well. As some of the proposals are complements to the usual
CRS, they were carefully evaluated in order to list the improvements, in terms of
child protection, and to try to detect if the usage of these devices can cause misuse
or confusion in the users. Table 19 below shows the average scoring of the
proposed solutions, according to the group of problems. The average score of each
solution, which is a result of the addition of the score of the strengths and the score
of the weaknesses divided by the number of assessments, according to each group
108
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
of problems is given, as well. Some of the cells are empty, which means that no
strengths or weaknesses were found for the solution. In some places a score of 0 is
given, which means that the sum of the scoring of the solution to this group of
problems is 0.
Table 19: Technical solutions' scoring
s c o r in g
Solutions evaluated
Social &
Cultural
Law &
Regulation
1,00
-2,00
-3,00
-0,67
3,00
0,00
0,25
3,00
2,00
2,00
-3,00
2,00
2,00
-0,40
2,00
2,00
0,67
1,50
0,00
4,00
2,00
0,50
6,00
1,50
0,50
0,50
0,00
3,00
1,50
0,50
0,50
0,00
0,50
0,50
2,00
0,00
1,50
3,00
2,33
-1,00
1,50
0,00
0,50
4,00
0,00
-2,00
0,69
1,95
1,64
0,40
0,54
Portable Travel seats - Easy car
seat
Backpack travel seats
Click and go
Harness tension visual indicator
ISOFIX BASE + fixation of a
shell
Seatbelt mechanical pretension
(automatic)
Seatbelt mechanical pretension
Support leg correct adjustment
indicator
ISOFIX connection indicator
Energy absorption in ISOFIX
connectors
Average scoring:
CRS-CARResearch
Interface
Misuse
The average scoring for all of the groups of problems is positive, which means that
the proposed solutions from this group contributed positively to solving these issues.
The highest score was obtained for law and regulation, which is understandable as
these products are formally approved. The lowest score was in research. This is
normal as these are new technologies and there is not a lot of information on them
from studies, surveys and other research areas. Additionally, the average scores of
each solution for the social and cultural group of problems are not negative, which
shows that the issues related with this group of problems were addressed quite well.
13.2 Innovation solutions
The technological solutions or ideas that are not approved were grouped in this
category. Several innovative ideas, prototypes or not formally approved products
were grouped in Innovations. There are 9 proposals in this group that were assessed
and scored. The applicability of ideas and research projects was evaluated.
It was decided that these 9 solutions represent the Innovations’ group very well. As
some of the proposals are complements to the usual CRS and they are not formally
approved, they were carefully evaluated in order to list the necessary improvements,
109
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
in terms of child protection, and to try to detect if the usage of these devices can
cause misuse or confusion in the users. Table 20 below shows the average scoring
of the proposed solutions, according to the group of problems. The average score of
each solution, which is a result of the addition of the score of the strengths and the
score of the weaknesses divided by the number of assessments, according to each
group of problems is given, as well. Some of the cells are empty, which means that
no strengths or weaknesses were found for the solution. In some places a score of 0
is given, which means that the sum of the scoring of the solution to this group of
problems is 0.
Table 20: Innovation solutions' scoring
s c o r i n g
Solutions reviewed
Social &
Cultural
Law &
Regulation
CRS-CARInterface
Global ISOFIX Indicator
New Concept of Child Load
Limiter Seatbelt
Dipnor
Booster seat top anchorage
point
ISOFIX Top Tether
Inflatable Seatbelt
Car Seat Leveller
Seat Belt Adjustment Locking device for removing
seatbelt slack
ISOFIX Performance Pad
0,67
4,00
4,00
1,60
-3,00
1,00
-1,40
0,00
Average scoring:
0,00
-0,50
-1,67
-1,33
Misuse
5,00
0,67
2,50
1,50
0,00
-1,00
0,00
-1,00
-4,00
-2,50
-3,00
-1,00
-2,00
-0,64
-4,00
-0,63
0,00
-0,50
-2,33
-5,00
0,50
-1,00
0,00
1,00
0,00
-0,33
Research
-0,50
-0,79
-4,00
0,07
The average scoring for most of the groups of problems is negative, which means
that these ideas and innovative concepts have a lot of weaknesses. The highest
negative value obtained is in law and regulation, which is understandable as these
products are not approved.
13.3 Accessories and add-ons solutions
This group combined the solutions that improve the comfort of the children during the
trip. Some of the proposals are approved and in usage and others are not yet
approved. The proposed solutions from this group were evaluated in terms of child
safety with respect to the different groups of problems defined. Additionally, these
proposals were evaluated as a potential cause of misuse as comfort and safety are
usually contradicting terms. There are 9 solutions in this group.
It was decided that these 9 solutions represent the Accessories and add-ons’ group
very well. As these proposals are complements to the usual CRS and some of them
110
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
are not formally approved, they were carefully evaluated in order to detect potential
misuse problems and/or confusion in the users. Table 21 below shows the average
scoring of the proposed solutions, according to the group of problems. The average
score of each solution, which is a result of the addition of the score of the strengths
and the score of the weaknesses divided by the number of assessments, according
to each group of problems is given, as well. Some of the cells are empty, which
means that no strengths or weaknesses were found for the solution. In some places
a score of 0 is given, which means that the sum of the scoring of the solution to this
group of problems is 0.
Table 21: Accessories and Add-on solutions' scoring
s c o r in g
Solutions reviewed
Social &
Cultural
Law &
Regulation
Padded head suports
0,00
0,00
Padded strap covers
0,25
1,00
Seat belt pillows
2,00
2,67
Inflatable seat belt attachment
Seat Liners
-2,00
0,50
0,00
-2,00
Reversible Liners
-0,50
0,00
Triangular Seat Belt Adjuster
-0,50
-5,00
Seat belt Height Adjuster
Neck supports
1,50
2,00
0,36
-3,00
-1,00
-1,57
Average scoring:
CRS-CARInterface
Research
Misuses
3,00
0,00
1,00
0,50
-0,75
0,50
-6,00
-0,50
-3,00
-4,50
-1,00
1,00
0,74
The results show that the solutions from the Accessories and add-ons’ group have
some serious weaknesses in terms of child safety. However, as it can be seen from
Table 21 above there were not a lot of assessments on the proposals for the groups
of problems “Research” and “CRS-CAR-Interface”. This can be explained as some of
these add-ons and accessories are new and there is not enough research
information on them. Additionally, as in most of the cases they do not interact with
the car. The lack of related information can explain the large negative value for the
“Research” group.
It is noticeable for the “social and cultural” and “misuse” groups of problems, these
solutions scored positively. This can be explained with the fact that these proposals
are easy to apply and provide comfort to the children, which ensures the happiness
of both children and parents. The high negative score for “Law and Regulation” is
also understandable as these solutions are complements that make the CRS more
comfortable, but can not be necessary in terms of child protection. Also, as some of
them change the performance of some of the safety features (seat belt, for example)
they are not and probably will never be approved.
111
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
One of the solutions proposed and grouped in “Accessories and add-ons” was used
in an accident that was investigated. The triangular seat belt adjuster” was used in a
frontal impact with an 8 year-old boy, weighting around 25 kilograms. A booster
cushion was used. The medical information from the accident can be seen on Figure
47 below. Additionally, on Figure 48 can be seen a picture of the CRS and the belt
adjuster used. On Figure 49 can be seen a picture from the accident.
Figure 47: medical data from real accident
Figure 48: The CRS with the belt adjuster in the real accident
112
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 49: Accident scene picture
An accident reconstruction in a crash laboratory was carried out, based on this
accident. A Q6 dummy was used to represent the child. As it was a frontal impact
and a special belt routing device was used, a second Q6 dummy was placed to
compare the results with and without this device. The comparison is shown on
Figure 50 below. As it can be seen, the maximum pressure on the left abdominal
sensor of the Q6 dummy with this device is almost 2,5 times bigger than the one
measured on the dummy without it. This explains the single scoring results of this
device, shown on Figure 51 below.
Figure 50: Comparison between abdominal sensors on
dummies with and without belt adjuster
113
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 51: Solution's individual scoring
As well as the accident reconstruction, tests at R44 severity level were conducted to
compare the results with and without this device. Two Q6 dummies were used in
these tests. These tests confirmed that even when a regulation pulse is used, the
usage of the device exposes a higher abdominal injury risk than the Q6.
After confirming the bad results of this solution, it was checked whether this solution
can be bought and if yes, where. A triangular seat belt adjuster can be bought on the
internet. However, it seems that it is not available at shops. The price on the internet
is £9.95.
13.4 Anti-escape devices solutions
In this group were combined the solutions that prevent the child from undoing there
restraints and alarms that warn the parents of such actions. These devices were
evaluated in terms of child safety as the previous ones. Also, they were evaluated in
terms of potential cause of delay in eventual rescue actions. These proposed
solutions can contribute to the children’s unwillingness to use the seat. Moreover, the
proposals were evaluated as a potential source of misuse. In total 6 solutions were
allocated to this group.
It was decided that these 6 solutions represent the Anti-escape devices’ group very
well. Table 22 below shows the average scoring of the proposed solutions, according
to the group of problems. The average score of each solution, which is a result of the
addition of the score of the strengths and the score of the weaknesses divided by the
number of assessments, according to each group of problems is given, as well.
Some of the cells are empty, which means that no strengths or weaknesses were
found for the solution. In some places a score of 0 is given, which means that the
sum of the scoring of the solution to this group of problems is 0.
Table 22: Anti-escape devices solutions' scoring
s c o r in g
Solutions reviewed
Social &
Cultural
Law &
Regulation
0,25
0,00
2,00
1,00
-0,33
-1,00
Seat Belt Safeclip
-2,00
-1,00
-1,00
2,50
Buckle locks
Buckle Alarms
Buckle Alarms (harness)
4,00
5,00
5,00
-1,00
-2,00
4,00
0,00
0,50
0,50
Material attached to harness straps
and across child’s back
Chest clip
1,50
114
CRS-CARResearch
Interface
Misuses
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
2,21
-0,17
0,33
0,75
Average scoring:
The average score for the “Social and Cultural” group of problems was very high.
This can be explained by the fact that these devices ensure that the child is
restrained during the whole trip or, at least, the parents are warned if the child
unbuckles themselves. The “misuses” average is also positive. This can be
explained by the fact that the solutions from this group prevent some of the widespread forms of misuse, such as the belt under the arm and the child unbuckling
themselves during the trip. No strengths and/or weaknesses related to the
“Research” group of problems were found.
13.5 Summary and conclusions on child safety solutions
The proposed child safety solutions, which were assessed and evaluated, were
separated into 5 groups, based on their similarities. The assessments were carried
out from a child safety’s point of view. Five groups of problems were considered for
this evaluation.
Assessment was made in terms of strengths and weaknesses and was carried out
by child safety experts of the CASPER consortium. In order to correlate the different
assessments for each group of solutions, they were weighted. It was considered a
positive scoring scale for strengths and a negative scoring scale for weaknesses [+6;
-6]. On Figure 52 a summary of the assessing procedure is shown.
Solutions
Results and trends on 3D
graph
Figure 52: Procedure for assessing the solutions
Figure 53 shows how the different groups of problems scored in terms of child
safety. It can be seen that the solutions from the “Technical” group are all positive.
However, the other groups do not have this consistency. The results for Innovation
are mostly negative, which is understandable as this is a group of new technologies
that are not yet approved. In the other groups there are positive and negative
average assessments with respect to the groups of problems.
115
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 53: Groups of problems v/s groups of solutions
Figure 54 shows the natural distribution of the solutions per group. The purpose of
this graph is to strengthen the understanding of Figure 53. On Figure 54 it is shown
that the “Anti-escape devices” and “Technical” groups of solutions have positive
scoring and are well distributed. On the other hand, the “Accessories and add-ons”
and “innovations” are on the negative side. Therefore, we can recommend that more
effort is spent on developing the solutions for these groups.
These four groups have narrow graphs. This means that the standard deviation is
small. Therefore, the results show the real evaluation of the group of solutions. The
“Children with special needs” group of solutions has a positive distribution. However,
the scope of the graph is too big, which shows that the standard deviation is big. This
is a result of the small number of assessments and scorings of the proposed
solutions from this group.
Figure 54: Natural distribution of the solutions per group
116
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
14 POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF KNOWLEDGE
14.1 Buses
The CASPER project is mainly focused on reducing child injuries and fatalities in
road accidents as this is the most common way of transporting children. The
transportation of children in coaches faces similar issues. Frontal impact and
tipovers are the most frequent accidents involving buses; therefore the restraint
systems are focused to reduce the kinematics of the occupants inside the coaches.
However, in buses there are many more possibilities to absorb the energy before
reaching the occupants than in cars. The easiest way to find possible solutions for
buses was to find the child safety issues and then adapt the knowledge from cars to
buses.
Work Package 4 of the CASPER project selected and evaluated two possible
solutions for improving the child safety in buses. The proposals were evaluated in
terms of strengths and weaknesses.
14.1.1 Pequebus
A Spanish bus company proposed a concept, called “Pequebus”. The main idea is to
provide a specially adapted bus to transport children of up to 5 years old. This will
provide safe and comfortable transportation of the children. Additionally, this solution
will ensure the usage of CRS (child restraint system) in the bus and will decrease the
amount of misuse significantly. Parents will be able to track the exact position of their
children, when travelling, as the buses will be equipped with GPS systems. Figure 55
presents possible seat distribution in the bus. In red are presented the seats, which
will allow CRS of group 0+ to be mounted and in orange are the seats, on which
group 1 will be mountable. The CRS can be mounted and dismounted according to
the current demands.
Figure 55: The "Pequebus" concept
117
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The CASPER partners found seven strengths for this proposal. This solution can
improve the global figure of child safety because children are travelling in vehicles, in
which adapted restraint systems are available and correctly used. It also can
educate parents or at least make them wonder about the CRS they should use.
There are different criteria for the CRS usage in different countries/regions. If this
solution is implemented, monitors will ensure the correct usage of the restraint
systems. Additionally, the full legislation of the law will be ensured. This proposed
solution will eliminate the non-usage of CRS when children are transported by their
parents.
The good interface will be considered in the design of the bus seat and CRS, which
will make the bus attractive to children. This will reduce the children complaining
about being put in CRS as other children will be in the same position.
The assessment of this proposed solution had four weaknesses in addition to the
strengths that were mentioned above. This proposal will not improve the situation for
children transported in their parents’ cars. However, it is only to improve the safety of
children transported by buses.
One of the strengths mentioned was that the monitoring will ensure the correct
usage of the CRS. However, if this monitoring is done only at the beginning of the
trip, this will not guarantee the child’s safety during the whole trip.
There are some unclear points in the proposal. It is not clear who will secure the
children at the beginning of the trip. Additionally, it is not clear who will decide on the
appropriate CRS to be used. Also, it is not clear whether the harness height will be
adjusted for different children day by day. These are important issues that need to be
considered and clarified before implementing this solution.
Seating positions will have to be established. Otherwise, it will be necessary to
adjust each system for each travel or at each stop. This will increase the travel time
of the children.
14.1.2 SRI project
In this project a generic model for bus seats was developed. The aim was to allow
CRS to be homologated for both cars and coaches. A seat model for an average
CRS was created. Figure 56 shows the configuration of the tests that were carried
out.
118
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 56: The SRI project
This solution will encourage parents to restrain their children in buses as well as in
cars. This will be possible if they buy a CRS with homologations for both cars and
buses. This will improve the regulations for the safe transportation of children.
Homologating one CRS for both cars and buses is likely to increase the price as
more money is spent on the development of the CRS. Additionally, as the CRS is an
average of all other CRS there is the possibility that it will not replicate any certain
CRS.
The regulations for cars and buses are very different. There is a big possibility that it
will be very difficult for a CRS to pass all of them and to have a really good
performance in both cars and coaches. Moreover, there is no ISOFIX device in
buses, which will limit the type of CRS that can be approved with both
homologations.
14.2 Aeroplanes and trains
The child safety transportation problems in aeroplanes and trains are completely
different to the issues related with cars. For example, in aeroplanes one of the
biggest problems is turbulence as crashes are rare. Based on the experience
obtained during the CASPER project, the solutions used for preventing injuries are
working well as the main aim is to keep the passenger in place. An example for the
restraint of children in aeroplanes, which can be a good solution for trains as well, is
evaluated by the CASPER consortium partners.
Aviation cares
Currently, children are placed on their parents’ lap when travelling in aeroplanes.
However, this is not the safest way to transport a child. It would be safer if CRS are
used. This concept proposes a solution to this problem. It uses an additional belt and
shoulder harness that goes around the back of the seat and attaches to the
passenger’s lap belt to restrain the upper part of the body in case of turbulence (see
Figure 57). This has been created for children, weighing between 10 and 20
kilograms. This system can not be used in motor vehicles as it does not have a hard
backrest.
119
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Although this solution was created for aeroplane solutions, it may be a possible
solution for transportation of children in trains as currently there are no proposals to
solve this issue.
Figure 57: solution for aeroplanes
One of the strengths of this solution is that it can be used for trains as well as for
aeroplanes, which was the initial idea. Additionally, this solution can also be used in
buses, where it is mandatory for children to wear seatbelts when they are older than
3 years old. This can be a solution for younger children and maybe it can be used for
children up to 20 kilograms. This will greatly reduce the risk of projection and
ejection. Also, if tested/approved, it can be a good solution for the transportation of
children with certain disabilities, even when they weigh more than 20 kilograms.
Another strength of this solution is that the lower straps can be connected to lower
ISOFIX anchorages.
In aeroplanes, stewardesses check the correct usage of the belt of the passengers.
This will reduce the misuse. Additionally, as this is a very light solution with harness
restraints, it should be used longer than the existing EU systems with harness’s. If
connected to ISOFIX, children up to a large weight could use it. This also limits the
possible positions of children in case of accidents.
This proposed solution has several weaknesses as well. It is not mandatory to be
used and it probably never will be. The upper part of the harness is not easy to be
attached in a car, if it is decided that this solution can be used in cars as well. Also,
the fact that two belts are used would enlarge the risk of misuse of the system. There
will be a risk of attachment to non rigid points, which will be a structural failure.
From a sociological point of view, this solution will make the parents pay for a seat
for their children, while placing them on the lap may be free. Another weakness is
that this solution can be used only in vehicles with individual seats. The system has
to be provided by the “vehicle responsible”, which is the driver or the company.
Additionally, people (parents and children) in Europe are not used to such systems
and probably will not accept it for bigger children.
120
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
14.3 TRANSPORTATION OF DISABLED CHILDREN AND CHILDREN
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Currently, the transportation of disabled and special needs children is very difficult.
Often, no CRS are used as there are no adapted systems. In the CASPER project
an evaluation of the applicability of the solutions for children with special health care
needs was carried out. Then, the assessment was scored and evaluated for
improvements of comfort and/or safety of the disabled children.
Doctor Marilyn Bull presented the topic “Safe Transportation of Children with Special
Health Care Needs” in the POCC conference in Munich in December, 2011. In her
presentation she mentioned three basic principles in the transportation of children
with special health care needs. The first one was to try to use a conventional seat
when it is possible. The reason for this is that these seats are less expensive and
easier to find. Also, they are easier to use and are readily available. Another principle
mentioned was to never modify the structure of the CRS, unless the seat is crash
tested with the modification in order to validate it. This is very important as even
small modifications can change the CRS performance drastically. The final proposal
of Dr. Bull was to evaluate each child individually, according to his/her needs and to
the family situation.
Several things have to be considered when restraining children with special needs.
The child’s weight, height and age should be taken into account when selecting the
CRS. Apart from these main considerations the medical condition of the child has to
be taken into account, in order to choose the most appropriate restraint system. The
third main point that has to be considered is the recommended child’s position. Every
child may have specific needs for their transportation, according to their medical
condition.
14.3.1 Solutions for prematurity and low birth weight
A premature child is one that is born before the 37th week of pregnancy. The cause
is usually unknown, although there are several factors that contribute to a premature
birth like drug addiction, diabetes or infections.
As a consequence of a premature birth, the new born has underdeveloped organs
and needs special treatment until these are completely formed. However, the main
issue concerning the protection of children in cars is the low weight of the premature
children, usually less than 2,5 kg.
Positioning premature infants in conventional car seats may cause risk for hypoxia
and respiratory compromise1.
In order to improve the safety for new born children with low weight there are several
manufacturers that have developed special CRS for this group of children. Some of
them are listed in APPENDIX D
1
Willet, 1986 and 1988
121
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
14.3.2 Solutions for children with casts
Children with casts can have problems to get seated in their CRS, especially if they
have a plastered leg or a pelvic immobilization (Figure 58). The problems that can
arise with a child that is in a cast depend on whether he/she can sit or not.
Usually, if the child can sit, a normal CRS could be used but sometimes if the CRS is
too narrow the child may not fit. Wider CRS or one with low sides may be more
suitable. The use of blankets or pillows can also be necessary.
Figure 58: Child with casts
If it is not possible for the child to sit, the use of a conventional CRS is not possible.
That is why manufacturers developed some solutions to transport children lying flat
(see APPENDIX D) but a professional transportation may be required.
14.3.3 Solutions for children with neuromuscular conditions and cerebral palsy
Cerebral palsy is a general term referring to disorders that affect body movement,
balance and posture. Cerebral palsy can involve poor muscle tone, uncontrolled
movements and problems with posture, balance or coordination.
These symptoms can cause several problems to fit the child in a CRS due to the
poor head and trunk control that a forward facing CRS offers. It is recommended to
use CRS with a support outside the harness or head support systems (see Appendix
C).
14.3.4 Solutions for children with hydrocephalus
Hydrocephalus is commonly referred to as "water in the brain." The so-called "water"
is actually cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), a clear liquid that looks like water and is
produced in the 4 ventricles (cavities) of the brain, connected by narrow pathways2.
2
Source: National Hydrocephalus foundation (http://www.nhfonline.org/)
122
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In these cases it is recommended to use rearward-facing CRS, recline forwardfacing CRS or use a car bed.
14.3.5 Solutions for children with Behaviour Challenges
Behaviour challenges like autism, attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder or cognitive
impairment can affect safety when travelling. These children may offer resistance in
the consistent use of CRS.
It is recommended the use of devices like harness clips or entertaining distractions.
14.3.6 Solutions for children with Obesity
Obesity can be a problem in child safety for many reasons. Firstly, as the body is
heavier this means that in the case of an accident there is more energy that must be
absorbed. It also has to be considered that sometimes a bigger CRS is needed.
Manufacturers have developed several devices that can be used for overweight
children with higher weight limits and wider seats. Some examples are shown in
Appendix C.
14.3.7 Proposed improvements on CRS
APPENDIX D is a list of possible solutions for the CRS to different special needs
(Automobile Restraints). These solutions address different disabilities and provide
protection for children with special needs.
The list is developed for the knowledge of the users in the United States of America.
Its purpose is to increase the awareness among parents of different options for safer
transportation of their child/children. These solutions can possibly be used in Europe,
after validating and approving them.
14.3.8 Evaluation of the solutions for children with special needs
This group collected solutions that address the issues related to the transportation of
children with special needs. The proposals were evaluated according to their
applicability for the needs of disabled children. Additionally, they were assessed in
terms of improving the comfort and/or safety of the disabled children. This is the fifth
of the five groups of problems that were mentioned previously.
A total of 5 solutions were assessed and evaluated. It was considered that these 5
solutions represent the group very well. Table 23 below shows the average scoring
of the proposed solutions, according to the group of problems. The average score of
each solution, which is a result of the addition of the score of the strengths and the
score of the weaknesses divided by the number of assessments, according to each
group of problems is given, as well. Some of the cells are empty, which means that
123
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
no strengths or weaknesses were found for the solution. In some places a score of 0
is given, which means that the sum of the scoring of the solution to this group of
problems is 0.
Table 23: Disabled children solutions' scoring
s c o r i n g
Solutions reviewed
Seat Belt Adjustment-Belt
routing/comfort device
Children with Hip Spica Casts
(hip dysplasia)
Columbia Medical Orthopaedic
Car seat
Swivel Base
Seat and Adaptations for
disabled children - Harnesses
Average scoring:
Social &
Cultural
Law &
Regulation
0,67
-3,00
CRS-CARResearch
Interface
Misuses
-0,75
3,00
0,50
3,00
-3,00
3,00
-0,61
-3,00
-3,00
1,50
-3,00
1,95
As it can be seen from Table 23 above, there are not a lot of assessments for this
group of solutions. No related strengths or weaknesses were found for the CRSCAR-Interface. Also, there is only one assessment for “Law and Regulation” and one
for “Research”. The average result in misuse is high because in most of the cases
these solutions provide protection to children, which otherwise would not be
restrained.
124
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
15 Car-to-CRS communication
The number of safety devices implemented in modern cars is increasing, e.g.:






Front airbag
Side airbag/ curtain
Belt bag
Pre-tensioner
Force limiter
Pre-safe function
These car related safety devices are developed mainly for the protection of adult
occupants. For some systems children in CRS will also have a safety benefit, for
other systems children will not participate. In certain cases the safety devices may
also cause a potential danger for children in CRS. A car-to-CRS communication
could be a possibility to enable the participation of children in CRS to benefit from
these safety devices. Additionally dangerous situations caused by the safety
functions for children in CRS could be avoided.
To gather an overview of the possible potential of a car-to-CRS communication the
current situation of car related safety devices was analysed.
15.1 Car-to-CRS Communication
Advanced safety devices developed for the protection of adult passengers can lead
to dangerous situations for children in CRS. The best known example is the
passenger airbag in the early 90s. In several cases children in rearward facing CRS
placed on the passenger seat were killed due to deployed passenger airbags.
As a consequence the latest implementation of 2003/20/EG the transport of children
in rearward facing CRS in front of activated passenger airbags is forbidden in all
European member states.
Different airbag (disabling) strategies are offered by the different car manufacturers:

No disabling possible: Children in rearward facing CRS are not allowed to
travel on the passenger seat

Permanent disabling by garage: Risk of adult passenger travelling with
deactivated airbag

Manual switch (key): The passenger airbag can be activated/ deactivated by
the driver with a key switch

Automatic detection : A CRS installed in front of an airbag is detected and the
airbag is switched off or an adult passenger is detected and the airbag is
switched on
125
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Automatic detection is mainly developed for the US market. According to FMVSS
208 a vehicle has to use a system to deactivate the airbag automatically when a
child/CRS is using the seat or to activate the airbag when an adult is using the seat.
Another possibility is an airbag designed according to the Low Risk Deployment
Tests (FMVSS 208).
For the detection of children/CRS or adult passengers several possibilities are used
or could be used, most times a combination is used:







Pressure sensors in the seat and ultra sonic sensors for position control
Belt tension and belt length sensors and weight sensors in the seat
Weight sensors in the seat rail
CRS detection via ISOFIX connectors
Optical detection (e.g. IR- and 3D- cameras)
Capacitive sensors
Transponder (CPOD)
Automatic detection for all sensor and detection types that are not based on
communication, has to deal with the problem of overlap were it might not be clear
whether a small adult or large child/ CRS is placed on the seat.
The only system where there is a communication between the CRS and the vehicle
is the transponder system (CPOD). For this system an ISO Technical Specification
was published in 2009:
ISO/TS 22239-1:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and orientation
detection system (CPOD) – Part 1: Specifications and test methods:
In Part 1 the system functionality is described. In addition design recommendations
for the CPOD resonators and the CPOD sensors are given, as well as design
requirements regarding the CPOD child seats and CPOD passenger seats.
Compatibility measurement requirements are defined.
ISO/TS 22239-2:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and orientation
detection system (CPOD) – Part 2: Resonator specification:
Part 2 specifies the CPOD resonator with regard to electrical properties, resonator
timing and electrical and environmental parameters to meet the compatibility
requirements.
ISO/TS 22239-3:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and orientation
detection system (CPOD) – Part 3: Labelling:
Labelling for the CPOD CRS and the CPOD equipped vehicle is defined in Part 3.
This part includes specifications for instructions for use.
The Child Seat Presence and Orientation Detection (CPOD) is based on radiofrequency identification (RFID). The sensor is implemented in the vehicle seat. It
consists of one transmitting antenna and two receiving antennas (left and right).
126
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
The CPOD CRS is equipped with two resonators, left and right, coded for the
specific CRS.
The resonators are activated by an electromagnetic field generated through the
transmitting antenna of the sensor. The electromagnetic field is also the power
supply for the resonators. The signals are modulated by the resonators and the
information about the CRS is transmitted into a digital protocol and received by the
two receiving antennas of the sensor. The information is transmitted to the vehicle
board electronic via the CPOD electronics (Figure 59).
One transmitting antenna
Two receiving antennas
Figure 59: CPOD principle [Maitre, 2008]
The transmitted information includes the type of CRS (e.g. rearward facing, forward
facing, convertible, booster, carry cot). The information can be partly or fully used by
the vehicle manufacturer. Presently only the presence of the CRS is used however it
is possible to also use information on type and orientation of the CRS. Due to the
implementation of two resonators (left and right) in the CRS and a left and right
receiving antenna in the vehicle seat, it is possible to detect which sensor is
positioned above which antenna. This allows the identification of the orientation of
the CRS. Combining the orientation with the type of CRS enables the system to
determine whether the CRS is positioned correctly.
Actual situation
CPOD comparable systems were introduced by one vehicle manufacturer in 1996.
Two other OEM followed with corresponding systems. As there was no standard for
child seat detection, a change of the CRS between the vehicle brands was not
allowed.
127
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Actual CPOD, in line with the ISO/TS, is at the moment offered only by one car
manufacturer as an option for all passenger vehicles of this brand. For some models
CPOD is standard equipment.
The information used currently is only the detection of the presence of a CRS to
deactivate the passenger airbag [Daimler, 2011].
Future possibilities
CPOD is able to offer the information needed to not only detect the presence of a
CRS but also the orientation. Here, not only the correct positioning detection with
regard to the CRS type (forward/ rearward facing) but also with regard to other
positioning possibilities such as askew or transverse is feasible.
Based on the CRS type different activation strategies for vehicle related advanced
safety devices are possible. This could be promising, e.g. for:






Passenger airbags (not only airbag on/off, but also different airbag stages)
Side airbags/ curtains
Other airbag types (belt bag, knee bag, …)
Load limiter
Pre-safe functions
Others
It would also be possible to distinguish between ISOFIX CRS and belted CRS in
order to deactivate or activate the seat belt reminder, depending on the installation
type of a CRS. Another option could be to give additional display information to
advice the consumer e.g. to check whether a necessary integral harness is correctly
used.
Advantages
An ISO Technical Specification was published for CPOD. Due to the communication
between CRS and vehicle there is no overlap problem between CRS and small
adults. CPOD is able to detect the presence of a CRS, child seat type and
orientation, as well as ISOFIX and misuse (e.g. correct positioning) identification is
possible. CPOD allows CRS type dependent safety device activation (e.g. passenger
airbag stages, side bags, load limiters...)
Disadvantages
There are specific requirements for vehicle seat and child restraint systems, e.g. the
CRS used in a CPOD equipped vehicle needs to be provided with resonators. This
could lead to problems with people normally using a CPOD CRS in a CPOD vehicle
in case they change to a vehicle not equipped with CPOD. These problems could
also occur in the case of people who change the CRS to a Non-CPOD CRS in a
CPOD equipped vehicle while they are used to the CPOD functions.
128
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
15.2 Safety devices
The accident database was analysed with regard to the presence of safety devices
at the place where the child was seated. The database includes 1288 restrained
children, 186 were seated on the front passenger seat (Figure 60).
Figure 60: Presence of safety devices at the seating position
In 85% of the cases where the child was seated on the front passenger’s seat, the
seat was equipped with a pre-tensioner (46% including rear seats) and in 46 cases
(25%) with a load limiter. In cases with children placed on the rear seating positions
37 children (3%) could be found on places equipped with a pre-tensioner and 66
(6%) on places with load limitation seat belts. Side airbags were only found on the
front seat, in 13% (24) of the cases. In 5 % (10) there was a head airbag on the front
seating position. For the rear seating position a head airbag could be seen in 79
cases (7%). In 30% (56) of the cases where children were seated on the front
passenger seat a front airbag was present.
15.2.1 Pre-tensioner and load limiter
122 children were seated on vehicle places equipped with pre-tensioners, 112 on
places with load limitation belts (Figure 61).
129
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 61: Presence of pre-tensioner and load limiter at the seating position
A separation between the different CRS types shows balanced figures, with fewer
boosters than other CRS and children using the seatbelt only, for both, pre-tensioner
and load limiter Figure 62.
Figure 62: Pre-tensioner and load limiter per CRS type
The age distribution of children on vehicle seats equipped with load limitation seat
belts shows that load limiters were most often recognised with children of an age
from 8 to 11 years (Figure 63).
130
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 63: Load limiter: distribution by age
Pre-tensioner and load limiter are expected to show benefit especially for children in
boosters with and without backrests, were the child is directly restrained by the
vehicle belt.
Within the CHILD misuse test program [CHILD Deliverable 1.2.2] single sled tests
with pre-tensioners and CRS for different age groups were conducted. Here a
reduction of belt slack and a good coupling between child and restraint system was
recognised. A positive effect on all CRS groups was seen in sled tests due to the
reduction of belt slack.
For load limitation seat belts a potential to reduce chest deflection is expected. An
analysis of the reconstruction database shows belt loads in some cases of even
more than 5 kN (Figure 64).
Figure 64: Reconstruction database: upper belt loads (Q3, Q6)
131
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
15.2.2 Passenger Airbag
The accident database contains 50 children in front of activated passenger airbags
(Figure 65). Eight of the cases in the category “other CRS” (13 cases total) are
rearward facing CRS (16%), which is a clear misuse.
Figure 65: Passenger airbag: distribution by restraint type
Analysing the reconstruction database, in 13 cases a child dummy was placed on
the front seat (Figure 66). Five cases are included with deployed passenger airbag,
there are four misuse cases with a rearward facing CRS.
Figure 66: Reconstruction Database: Passenger Airbag
In all cases from the reconstruction database with rearward facing CRS and
deployed airbag a MAIS 4 or MAIS 5 was received. This is also dependent on the
selection criteria for the database.
132
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
It was seen in CHILD misuse tests [CHILD Deliverable 1.2.2], that the danger for
children in rearward facing CRS also depends on the mounting position of the
airbag, top mounted airbags seem to reduce the danger for children in rearward
facing CRS essentially. This was also shown in [Müller et al., 2010], with a small
number of sled test with different airbag modules. The number of test does not allow
verifiable statements but gives an idea of what could be possible in airbag
development.
For older children in boosters, passenger airbags could have a positive effect on the
kinematics.
15.2.3 Side Airbag/ Curtain
In total the accident databases includes 137 head and side airbags. 34 children were
seated on the front seat, of these 10 had a head airbag/curtain at the place where
the child was seated, 79 in the rear (Figure 67). The accident database contains no
side airbags in the rear.
Figure 67: Head airbags/ curtain front and rear
34 children were placed next to a head airbag/curtain and were secured by the seat
belt, 25 on boosters and 30 with other CRS (Figure 68).
133
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 68: Head airbag: distribution by restraint type
For vehicle seating places equipped with side airbags: in 24 cases there was a side
airbag present at the seating position. 11 of the children were secured by the
seatbelt only, 3 with a booster and 10 on other CRS (Figure 69).
Figure 69: Side airbags: distribution by restraint type
Two cases with head airbag/ curtain are in the reconstruction database:
In a case, reconstructed by TU Berlin, a Q6 was seated on a booster with a backrest
in a tree impact. During the real accident the child on the struck side received MAIS
5 injuries to the head. The vehicle was equipped with a curtain on the seating
position. The curtain was stopped by the backrest of the high back booster (Figure
70). The child did not benefit from the curtain.
134
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
.
Figure 70: Curtain stopped by the backrest of the booster
In a case, reconstructed by BASt, the seating place of the child on the struck side,
replaced by a Q3, is equipped with a head airbag/curtain. The Q3 is seated in a
forward facing Group I CRS with 5-point harness system. The child in the accident
received a MAIS 3 at head and chest. During the reconstruction the dummy was
found to be too small to benefit from the curtain (Figure 71).
Figure 71: Dummy too small
135
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Within the CASPER Project full vehicle side impact crash tests were conducted by
LAB in co-operation with UTAC. With these tests it is possible to compare the
dummy readings in a car environment [CASPER Deliverable 4.1] and allow
analysing the effect of side airbags. All tests were conducted with a Q3 dummy in a
forward facing harness system with ISOFIX and top tether and a Q1.5 dummy in a
rearward facing infant carrier with ISOFIX base. The tests compared «worst case»
scenarios with intrusion area more at head level with and without side protection
devices active. A side impact AEMDB was used as bullet vehicle (weight 1500 kg)
with 50 km/h. The configurations can be seen in Figure 72. Additionally a test in a
«non worst case» configuration was conducted, with the level of intrusion more in the
area of the feet (Figure 73).
Figure 72: full vehicle side impact test configuration – worst case
Figure 73: Full vehicle side impact test configuration – non worst case
For the worst case scenario the Q3 was placed on the passenger seat, the Q 1.5 in
the rear. In the non worst case scenario the Q3 was seated on the rear seats and the
Q1.5 on the passenger seat.
The dummy readings on head and chest showed a clear improvement due to the
implementation of a side airbag in the backseat and a curtain. A reduction of around
40g for the resultant head acceleration and 45 g for the resultant chest acceleration
was recognised. The resultant head and chest accelerations were reduced to the
level of the non worst case conditions.
136
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
For the values of the Q1.5 tested with and without a curtain, no differences could be
shown between both configurations. No contact with the curtain occurred. The
dummy in a rearward facing infant carrier is too small to participate in the benefits
from this safety device.
15.2.4 Other Safety Devices
For other safety devises in modern cars the influence or possible benefit for child
safety in vehicles is unknown at this point in time, this is due to the relatively small
number of implementations in the actual car fleet.
Belt bags
Belt bags or inflatable seatbelts are introduced to the market on vehicle models in
the USA at the moment. The inflatable seatbelt combines the normal seatbelt with
airbag technology. Using cold compressed gas to inflate the belt bag results in the
belt bag being broadened, this will distribute the crash energy to a larger area across
the occupant’s torso. Additional support of the head and neck is also expected [Ford,
2011].
Pre-safe functions
Pre-safe functions are already introduced to the market. The Pre-safe function
detects a potential collision and activates a mechanical belt pre-tensioner, as well as
moving seats and backrests to a safe position and closing open sunroofs [Daimler,
2012].
Active seatbelt buckle
The active seat belt buckle is not yet on the market. An electric motor moves the
buckle upwards, when the doors open to make it easier to buckle up. Afterwards the
buckle moves down to reduce the belt slack. The active seatbelt buckle will be
integrated in the pre-safe function for the belt pre-tensioning.
137
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
16 CAR-TO-CRS INTERFACE
The interface is partially regulated by ECE Reg. 14 and Reg. 16 for cars and ECE
Reg. 44 for the CRS.
The data presented below was acquired by CSC Car Safety Consulting UG and
made available for further analysis by VFSB. The measurement process was
explained for each item below. In total the data set consists of 446 cars that were
expected to offer ISOFIX in at least one seating position. The oldest cars in the
sample were introduced into the market in 1994 while most of the cars in the sample
were introduced in 2010 and 2011, see Figure 74. The complete list of cars is shown
in APPENDIX E. It is important to note that facelift version of a car introduced in the
market before was considered as an individual car model.
90
no. of cars in the sample
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
year of market introduction
Figure 74: Market introduction year of the cars in the data sample
For the description of the car-to-CRS interface it is reasonable to distinguish
between belted CRS, ISOFIX CRS and CRS that utilise both belts and ISOFIX at the
same time. However, parts of the interface are of importance for all types of CRS.
The geometry of car seats is crucial for CRS compatibility. The angle between the
seat cushion and the backrest is especially important for forward facing CRS with a
fixed backrest angle. In addition, the cushion angle is also important. The latter
defines, for example, the backrest angle for rearward facing CRS, which influences
ergonomic issues of baby shells from one side and dummy readings according to
ECE R44 and Euro NCAP on the other side.
The angle of the seat cushion ranges from 1° to 29° with a mean value of 14°, see
Figure 76. The differences between front passenger seat, rear outer seats and rear
138
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
centre seats are minor with respect to the interval +/- . The seat cushion angle is
measured using a bar that is placed on top of the seat cushion, see Figure 75.
Figure 75: Seat cushion angle measured with a straight bar
front passenger (n=445)
rear outer (n=437)
rear center (n=361)
350
no. of observations [-]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
seat cushion angle [°]
Figure 76: Seat cushion angle observed in today’s cars
As the backrest angle is normally adjustable for the front passenger seat, only rear
seats were taken into account for analysing the angle between seat cushion and
backrest. The angle between seat cushion and backrest varies between 83° (outer
seat) and 115° (centre seat) with a mean value of 99° for the outer seats and 101
for the centre seats (see Figure 77). The backrest shape is normally curved with the
139
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
most protruding parts in the lumbar spine region. The backrest angle is measured at
a position that is felt to be representative for the entire backrest.
rear outer (n=319)
140
rear centre (n=231)
number of observations [-]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
angle between seat cushion and backrest [°]
Figure 77: Angle between seat cushion and backrest in the second seating row.
The distance above the CR point is important for defining limits for head excursion in
the Z direction for front and rear impacts as well as for roll overs. The distance is
measured in the vertical direction above the CR point while the location of the CR
point is visually assessed. The distance in less than 5% of the assessed cars is
below 850 mm, see Figure 78.
front passenger seat (n=268)
rear outer (n=262)
850
1000
rear centre (n=206)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
800
900
950
1050
1100
distance CR to roof [mm]
Figure 78: Distance between CR-point and roof
140
1150
1200
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
16.1 Interface for belted CRS
For belted CRS the interface is mainly described within UNECE regulation 14 and
16, defining the position of belt anchorages, equipment with belt systems, etc.
According to ECE reg. 14, all seating positions in M1 vehicles (passenger cars with 9
seating positions or less) and M2 vehicles (passenger vehicles with more than 9
seating positions) up to maximum permissible mass of 3.5 t need to be equipped
with 3-point belt systems. An exception is made for rearward facing seating
positions.
For the lower belt anchorages ECE reg. 14 requires a minimum distance of 120 mm
to the seat centre line and a minimum distance between both lower belt anchorages
of 350 mm. For centre seats a minimum distance of 240 mm between both lower
anchorages is sufficient. The assessed distance between lower belt anchorages in
the centre seat varies from 210 mm to 710 mm with a mean value of 325 mm. Fitting
tests with semi-universal group 0+ and group I CRS show fitting problems up to a
distance of 320 mm, see Figure 79. In the outer seating positions no problems with
the position of lower belt anchorages were observed. For the measurement of the
distance of the lower belt anchorages the position of the tongue was used for the
buckle position. In case of flexible buckle connection the buckle was put into a
vertical position.
CRS fitting problems observed
80
no. of observations [-]
70
60
50
40
30
20
n=360
10
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
distance lower belt anchorages [mm]
Figure 79: Distance between lower belt anchorages in the rear centre seat
In addition ECE reg. 16 requires testing a CRS gabarit in order to assess belt length
compatibility and belt anchorage position compatibility of CRS. No assessment of
this requirement is available for the CASPER project.
141
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
16.2 ISOFIX CRS
With respect to ISOFIX CRS, it is important to distinguish between location of
ISOFIX anchorages, availability of TopTether, universal ISOFIX positions and the
available space for different types of CRS.
According to the current ECE reg. 14, all cars, except those with only one seating
row, convertibles and cars offering integrated CRS, need to be equipped with at least
two seating positions with ISOFIX, of which at least 2 need to be equipped with
TopTether.
The first cars offering ISOFIX anchorages were on the market at the end of the
1990s.
Following the selection criterion for the analysed cars, most of them offer at least one
seating position with ISOFIX. Most of the ISOFIX positions are located in the rear
outer seats (see Figure 80). In the rear outer position, 73% of the analysed cars offer
ISOFIX and TopTether. However, among these examples there are approximately
10 cars that do not allow universal ISOFIX CRS, but only specific ISOFIX CRS with
TopTether.
500
ISOFIX with TT
ISOFIX w/o TT
no ISOFIX/no seat
450
no. of observation [-]
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
front passenger seat
rear outer
rear centre
Figure 80: Availability of ISOFIX anchorages
According to the ISO Standard 13216 the ISOFIX anchorages need to be positioned
within a range of 70 mm behind the CR point to 10 mm in front of the CR point. In the
assessed car the distance between ISOFIX anchorages and CR point in the X
direction varies between 5 mm and 105 mm with the mean value of 52 mm, see
Figure 81. In this context it is important to note, that measurements in relation to the
142
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
CR point are subject to considerably large tolerances (e.g., +/- 10 mm or more).
However, that does not explain the large difference between the maximum allowed
distance of 70 mm and the assessed distance of 105 mm. Looking in more detail into
the cars with anchorages a large distance behind the CR, are quite old and probably
designed before the appearance of the ISO standard.
180
n=425
no. of observations [-]
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
distance ISOFIX to CR X [mm]
Figure 81: Assessed position of ISOFIX anchorages in X direction
In addition to the ISOFIX position in the X direction the angle of the connection
between ISOFIX anchorages and the front end of the seat cushion is also defined, It
is supposed to be within the range of 5° to 25° in the ISO Standard 13216. The
assessed angles between ISOFIX anchorages and front end of the seat cushion
varies between 4.3° and 19° with an average of 11.7°, see Figure 82. For measuring
this angle a wooden plate was equipped with ISOFIX anchorages which are aligned
with the lower surface of the plate. After installation of the plate, its angle was
measured.
143
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
120
n=422
no. of observation [-]
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
angle between ISOFIX anchorages and front end seat cushion [°]
Figure 82: Assessed ISOFIX angles
ISOFIX anchorage positions in Y and Z directions are currently not regulated, but
could be of interest. The distance of the mid plane of the ISOFIX anchorages and the
mid plane of the car seat varies between 45 mm in outboard direction and 55 in
inboard direction with a mean value of 2 mm in inboard direction. In most of the cars
the centre of the ISOFIX anchorages is located near the centre of the seat (Figure
83). The centre of the car seat was assessed by the centre of the head rest.
250
n=422
no. of observation [-]
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-30
-10
10
30
outboard
50
70
90
inboard
distance between mid plane seat and mid plane ISOFIX anchorages [mm]
Figure 83: Assessed distance in Y of the middle plane of the ISOFIX anchorages and the
middle plane of the car seat
144
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In the Z direction the ISOFIX anchorages are mainly positioned slightly above the
CR point. However, the position ranges from 10 mm below CR point to 90 mm above
with a mean value of 14 mm above the CR point (Figure 84). ISOFIX anchorages
below the CR point are mostly rated as difficult to access. ISOFIX anchorages far
above the CR point require that the CRS structure is sufficiently stable to be able to
support the child without support from the seat cushion. Again the position of the CR
point was visually determined.
140
n=422
no. of observation [-]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
0
20
40
below CR point
60
80
100
120
above CR point
distance between CR point and ISOFIX anchorages in Z direction [mm]
Figure 84: Assessed position of ISOFIX anchorages in Z direction
For CRS with support leg, the distance between ISOFIX anchorages, the front end of
the seat cushion and the necessary support leg length is also important. The seat
cushion length varies between 350 mm and 590 mm in the rear outer positions, see
Figure 86, and from 460 to 570 in the front passenger seat position. The mean
values are 506 mm and 522 mm for the rear outer seats and the front passenger
seat, respectively. The length of the seat cushion was measured parallel to the seat
cushion from ISOFIX anchorages to the line vertical to the ground that is aligned with
the front edge of the seat cushion, see Figure 85.
l
Figure 85: Assessment of the length of the seat cushion
145
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
160
n=422
no. of observation [-]
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
400
450
500
550
600
650
distance from ISOFIX to front end seat cushion [mm]
Figure 86: Assessed distance between ISOFIX anchorages and front end of the seat cushion
(rear seats)
The distance of the floor, as shown below, is assessed perpendicular to a line
between ISOFIX anchorages and front end of the seat cushion which is a distance of
585 mm from ISOFIX anchorages. The distance varies in the front passenger seat
from 260 mm to 425 mm and in the rear outer positions from 285 to 510 mm, see
Figure 87.
front passenger seat (n=54)
rear outer (n=420)
45
40
percentage [%]
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
250
300
350
400
distance to floor [mm]
Figure 87: Assessed distance to floor
146
450
500
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In approximately 10% of the assessed cars the ISOFIX anchorages were difficult to
access. The reasons for this rating were different, but in most of the cases it resulted
from ISOFIX anchorages that were too far behind CR point, see Figure 88. In
addition ISOFIX anchorages which are too low, too narrow seat bight, slits in the
fabric cover that are smaller than necessary and belt anchorages in front of the
ISOFIX anchorages were reported. It is important to note that sometimes a
combination of several of the reasons was observed.
25
observations [-]
20
15
10
5
0
ISOFIX too far ISOFIX too
ISOFIX too
back
low w.r.t. CR low w.r.t seat
bight
interference
with belt
seat bight too slits in cover
narrow
too small
Figure 88: Problems with ISOFIX accessibility
According to current ECE reg. 16 the car manufacturer needs to check the available
space for rear facing ISOFIX CRS, lateral facing CRS and forward facing group I
CRS with so called child restraint fixtures (CRF). In the manual the manufacturer
shall provide the information which of the fixtures are suitable in universal ISOFIX
configuration (forward facing group I CRS with TopTether, size classes F2, F2X, F3
or B, B1, A respectively) and semi-universal ISOFIX configuration, respectively. In
case of suitability of semi-universal ISOFIX size classes the manufacturer shall
provide a list of corresponding recommended CRS of this group. The ISOFIX size
class F2X (B1) is the one which is allowed in most of the cases. A quite high number
of cars offering ISOFIX positions is not homologated according the current ECE reg.
16 and the size classes are not specified, see Figure 89.
147
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
90
F2
F2X
F3
not specified
share of ISOFIX positions [%]
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
front passenger seat
(n=65)
rear outer (n=425)
rear centre (n=27)
Figure 89: Suitability of universal ISOFIX size classes
In the semi-universal configuration the F2X size class is allowed less often than the
universal ISOFIX CRS. In the rear outer positions the rearward facing size classes
are allowed in approximately 40% to 45% of the cars, see Figure 90. When ignoring
those cars that do not allow any semi-universal size class and without specification
of the size classes R1 is accepted in 80% of the cars, R2 in 77% and R3 in 73% in
the rear seat of the assessed cars. In the front seat the numbers are 62% R1, 57%
R2 and 43% R3 which is less than in the rear seats.
70
F2
F2X
F3
R1
R2
R3
L1
L2
not specified
only specific
share of ISOFIX positions [%]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
front passenger seat
(n=65)
rear outer (n=425)
rear centre (n=27)
Figure 90: Suitability of universal ISOFIX size classes
148
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
In summary the largest FF size class (F3) is accepted in the rear seat in
approximately 80% and 46% in the front seat. The largest RF size class (R3) is
accepted in 40% in the front seats and 73% in the rear seats.
In this context it is important to note that the ECE R16 tables in a number of cars are
confusing and do not support the general recommendations to use ISOFIX CRS.
Problems are:



FF ISOFIX classes are allowed for universal CRS only
o Most semi-universal ISOFIX CRS can also be used with belts
o It is difficult to explain to the CRS user that the belted one is allowed
but the ISOFIX version is not even though it might fit
All ISOFIX size classes are mentioned as universal
o Only FF ISOFIX CRS can be homologated as universal
No semi-universal ISOFIX size classes are mentioned
The main reason for this seems to be the regulation that requires the car
manufacturer to provide recommendations for semi-universal ISOFIX CRS
mentioned in the table.
16.3 Booster type CRS with ISOFIX
For booster type CRS with ISOFIX two issues are known. The first one is that belt
and ISOFIX anchorages can seldom be used at the same time. The second one is
interference with the car structure. The latter one cannot be addressed within this
paper, but activities of several groups are ongoing to define CRF for this
configuration.
In the front passenger seat the distance between the outboard ISOFIX anchorage
and the buckle is at least 50 mm. In the rear seat the distance varies from -40 mm
(ISOFIX anchorage is between the lower belt anchorages) to 190 mm. Actual
problems were observed up to a distance between ISOFIX anchorages and buckle
of 20 mm.
149
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
front passenger seat (n=54)
rear outer (n=423)
rear centre (n=24)
80
70
percentage [%]
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-50
0
50
100
150
200
distance inboard ISOFIX to inboard lower belt anchorage [mm]
Figure 91: Assessed distance between inboard ISOFIX anchorage and inboard lower belt
anchorage
The current initiative for the development of a new regulation for the homologation of
CRS (GRSP Informal Group on Child Restrain Systems, IG CRS) aims on
considering booster type CRS with ISOFIX support as universal CRS. In order to
fulfil this aim, it is important to develop booster type CRF (Child Restraint Fixtures) to
measure geometrical compatibility. Information based on fitting tests results from 4
different ISOFIX boosters in hundreds of cars identified problems which are
summarized and critical cars to be considered to develop the envelopes were
derived.
In general the following fitting problems were observed:






Interference between CRS and head rest
Interference between ISOFIX and lower belt anchorage points
Interference between CRS and side structure of the car
Interference between CRS head rest and c-pillar
Interference between CRS head rest and roof frame
Interference between CRS head rest and car roof
The observed problems are summarized below in Figure 92 and Figure 93. It is
important to note that the different CRS were not always tested in the same cars.
150
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
no ISOFIX - buckle interference
ISOFIX - buckle interference
100
share of observations [%]
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CRS 1 (n=223)
CRS 2 (n=151)
CRS 3 (n=118)
CRS 4 (n=148)
Figure 92: Problems to use ISOFIX and belt at the same time
no interference
100
interference
share of observations [%]
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CRS 1 (n=223)
CRS 2 (n=151)
CRS 3 (n=118)
CRS 4 (n=148)
Figure 93: Interference of CRS with car body
Following the global analysis of problems in the interface between cars and booster
ISOFIX, six cars were selected that represent specific problems (see Table 24). For
the selection it was also important, that problems occurred only with some CRS, but
not with all four of them.
151
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 24: Selected cars and fitting results of the four CRS
For most of the six cars OEM provided interior CAD data, for one car the geometry
was measured with a 3-d measurement device. Geometry data for the four CRS was
also assessed by the 3-d measurement device.
The four CRS CAD models were used to develop an envelope that fits all CRS. In
the next step this envelope was cut in order for it to fit into the six cars.
According to 2003/20/EC the EU countries shall be required to use CRS for children
up to a stature of 150 cm. However, an exception for 135 cm was allowed. Different
EC member states now have different rules for the use of CRS. For example, in
Sweden and France the 135 cm limit was used while in Germany and Spain the 150
cm limit is applicable. Following these regulations two different envelopes were
developed: one for the children with a stature of 150 cm and one for the children with
a stature of 135 cm. The aim was to fit all CRS with a head rest position suitable for
135 cm children into the 135 envelope, while limitations were accepted for the 150
cm version. However, it was not possible to fit the 135 cm version of CRS 4 into the
envelope. It is debatable whether or not the two sizes are appropriate. Another
approach could be to check for which statures the car can provide suitable protection
even with a backless booster. As this data was not available and 150 cm / 135 cm
are common praxis used in fitting lists it was decided to go along this route. The 135
cm position was assessed using the stature anthropometric data (see Table 25)
provided with the draft new regulation and the CRS manufacturers’ recommendation
for adjustment of head rest with respect to shoulder height. If no corresponding
advice was given, the head rest lower edge was positioned approximately 2 fingers
above shoulder height.
152
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Table 25: Excerpt of anthropometric data from GRSP IG CRS draft regulation.
[http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29grsp/ECE-TRANS-WP.29-GRSP2011-21e.pdf]
Most of the high back booster CRS have an adjustable backrest angle and angles
between the seat cushion and the car backrest are different in different seats (Figure
77). In order to address this item a hinge was integrated into the envelopes to adjust
the backrest angle to the car geometry. It is still unclear how to assess CRS with
fixed backrest angle.
Figure 94 and Figure 95 show the shape of the 135 cm and the 150 cm booster CRF
proposal, respectively.
153
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 94: 135 cm booster CRF proposal
154
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Figure 95: 150 cm booster CRF proposal
As already mentioned above, it was impossible to fit CRS 4 into the CRF proposals.
Figure 96 shows a huge interference at the side and small interference in the head
rest area. However, all other assessed CRS fit at least in their 135 cm adjustment.
Figure 96: Interference between 135 cm envelope and CRS 4 in 135 cm adjustment
The proposals were made available for ISO TC22 SC12 WG1 for further discussion
and to receive feedback from industry.
16.4 Third anchorage point
In the beginning of the preparation of the new regulation for the homologation of
CRS it was discussed whether or not a third rigid ISOFIX anchorage point could
155
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
replace TopTethers and support legs. Although this approach was not further
considered the existing data was analysed, considering where a third anchorage
point could be located. In principle two different locations were discussed:


below seat cushion
at heel kick area (at the floor)
The position below the seat cushion was felt to be better because this position would
allow to have the connection between this point and the CRS with only one degree of
freedom (adjustable in CRS X direction), while the position in the heel kick area
would require adjustment of the connection arm in CRS X and Z directions.
Based on the available data the third anchorage point could be located in the red box
shown in Figure 97 with a very few exemptions with very thick seat cushions or very
low seats.
ISOFIX anchor (set to 0-0)
top end seat cushion
bottom seat cushion
floor
300
200
Z [mm]
100
possible reception area of 3rd
ISOFIX point
0
0
-100
-200
100
200
300
400
500
Audi TT I
Nissan X-Trail
Mazda CX7
-300
-400
X [mm]
Figure 97: Proposal for third ISOFIX anchorage point
156
600
700
Lancia Delta
FIAT Croma
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
17 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
17.1
Overview-current situation
As outlined right at the beginning of this document, it is known that child restraints
increase the safety of children travelling in cars. Developing regulations have
ensured that core standards must be met in order for child restraints to be sold, and
these standards go through a process of revision as our understanding of CRS
safety develops.
Ensuring that child restraints are actually used and used correctly is very
challenging. Developments such as the standardised fitting offered by ISOFIX
contribute towards tackling misuse, but even ISOFIX is not a perfect system, with
additional tethers needed in certain configurations of cars and seats.
One of the key misuse challenges is children using the wrong sized CRS, often due
to premature graduation, rear-facing to front-facing, and front-facing to booster.
Current regulations across Europe use guidelines based on weight, for which
approximate age groups are provided. European regulation also sets the minimum
height for no longer requiring a CRS at 1.5m, although clearly 1.35m is often used in
local applications of the law.
To correctly follow the current guidelines, parents must know the weight of each of
their children and the weight limits for the seat (group) they are using – and to
enforce correct use, police must be able to accurately estimate the weight of the
children (assuming actual measurement is impractical) and identify the allowed
range of the specific CRS type.
It appears that many parents make decisions based on their own judgement,
influenced by factors such as perceived comfort and convenience. As examples,
children may be moved from rear-facing because they have to bend their legs, even
though they are still within the correct weight range. Children might be moved to the
next seat because a younger brother or sister now needs the same type of seat as
they are currently using.
There is however now a move towards using height indicators as part of a new set of
standards and this should make it much easier to understand when a child should
and should not be moved to a different seat, helping both parents and police.
As regulations set the minimum standards for CRS design, it can be assumed that all
seats available meet an acceptable safety standard although there is variation which
makes it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions. An independent,
comprehensive and freely available child seat equivalent of Euro NCAP could assist
with consumer choice, and like Euro NCAP, give manufacturers additional motivation
to further improve the safety of their designs, above and beyond the regulations.
The development of child safety seats started around 50 years ago. Designers,
researchers and manufacturers led the way, and legislation eventually followed. The
157
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
challenge since then has been to ensure that parents/carers (and their children)
understand the legislation in terms of what, why and how – what the requirements
are, why they are important and specifically how to meet them.
Families can be targeted through a mix of information campaigns, promotions and of
course national policy. The details of CRS policy, levels of enforcement and
compliance vary greatly across the world. Understanding the effects of policy (with
an appreciation of broad cultural differences), may help individual countries to reflect
on and develop their own child road safety strategies, but it is difficult to test out the
specific impact of legislation, which is usually introduced as part of a wider package
of road safety measures, within a continually evolving road safety environment. As
demonstrated by changing patterns in seat belt usage, social norms can be altered
over time by a combination of legislation, enforcement and education.
The issue of liability has been noted and generally it is the driver of a vehicle who is
responsible for ensuring that children are correctly restrained. Liability also applies
to manufacturers, to produce seats that are safe and will protect children in the event
of an accident. Manufacturers are guided by standards and regulations, which they
must follow but successful lawsuits in the USA have proven that even where
standards are met, manufacturers are at risk of being found liable in cases of death
or serious injury. Although this may provide additional incentive for manufacturers to
increase the safety of their seats beyond the legislated requirements, it could also
discourage innovation or even drive manufacturers away from the market.
An overview of European legislation has been presented. This demonstrates that
although European mandates have harmonised some aspects of CRS law, a range
of exemptions and additions means that there are significant differences between the
legislation of individual countries. Gathering accurate information from publicly
available online sources is challenging, especially as it is not always clear how old
the information is and it is sometimes only in the local language. This may be a
barrier preventing correct restraint use as people travel across borders.
Some notable child transport safety campaigns have been explored and resulted in a
number of considerations to note from successful campaigns:







Target both parents and children with separate resources for each and try to
make them feel empowered (rather than lectured)
Use of an appealing central character can help make the campaign
memorable
Use a range of media to appeal to different preferences and learning styles
Try to repeat exposure to the message and use opportunities to gain a captive
audience (e.g. waiting rooms)
Seek opportunities for cross-agency promotion
Work with community volunteers and build capacity to spread the message
personally to large numbers of people (e.g. people able to talk in schools, or
able to check car seat fitting at organised events)
Consider the use of targeted incentives and promotional gifts for short term
gains – but delivered within a programme that also tackles barriers to long
term behavioural change
158
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal



Ensure information is clear and appropriate for the target group – learn about
the audience before developing materials and adapting resources wherever
necessary (even within groups).
Consider the impact of cultural concerns, religious beliefs etc. on safety
behaviour and find ways to respond to this in a way that is respectful and
positive – supporting change in a culturally acceptable way
Cost can be a barrier to CRS use. One solution for dealing with the issue of
cost is for the state (or interested parties such as insurers) to loan, subside or
even pay in full for child restraints. There is a body of work to suggest that
this can be cost effective.
Finally, considering the overall effectiveness of interventions, the key seems to be a
combination of legislation, enforcement and education. Legislation alone is not
enough. Correct CRS use needs to become a social norm and this takes time.
Messages need to be clear, visible and repeated, with enough context that they are
not misleading. Finally CRS use needs to be obtainable, with consideration given to
financial and cultural barriers.
17.2 Recommendations
The following recommendations and opinions are based on the findings of this
report:







CRS laws must be easy for caregivers to understand in terms of both what is
required and why.
Education should be targeted at both children and adults.
Information on CRS faults and recalls should be more easily accessible
across the EU (as it is in the USA) – if it is available, it is difficult to find.
With different local requirements, clear and up to date information should be
available to all drivers on individual child restraint laws across the EU. It is
recommended that the European Commission website “Road Safety – Going
is
Abroad”
(http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/mobile/index.htm)
updated to include local child restraint legislation.
Those who fit and check child seats should be adequately trained to do so
and a standardised training programme could be beneficial (for example
National CPS Certification – Safekids in USA).
Standardised training for police (alongside clearer regulations such as visual
shoulder height indicators) could aid effective enforcement. Anecdotal
evidence is that police officers are very often not confident when stopping
vehicles to check CRS use.
The cost of child seats may be viewed as prohibitive, especially among low
income families. Subsidies and loan schemes have been demonstrated as a
cost effective way of increasing CRS use, and should be further explored
across Europe.
159
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The CASPER Project (Grant Agreement 218564) is funded by
the European Commission under the EC 7th Framework Programme.
The authors would like to thank the child safety experts who have supplied local
knowledge on child restraint use in their countries. Parents and Carers should
always consult information from road safety organisations in their own country for the
most up to date information regarding local laws.
Pictures of integrated CRS in section 11 that were not directly available at the car
dealer were kindly provided by Volvo and Seat.
160
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
REFERENCES
1. The AA – Driving Requirements by Country, Local Rules and Advice:
www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/overseas/countrybycountry.html
2. BMJ Editorial (2006). Child Safety in Cars. BMJ 2006;333:1183.
www.bmj.com/content/333/7580/1183.full
3. Britax/Römer History: www.britaxusa.com/learning-center/history-heritage
4. Britax survey results on UK CRS use (2011):
5. www.britax-babyonboard.co.uk/2011/06/21/millions-of-parents-flout-car-seatsafety-rules/
6. CARE, SafetyNet: Traffic safety basic facts 2004,Car occupants:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/care/doc/safetynet/2004/sn-trl1-3-bfs-car_occupants_022005.pdf
7. Case study: Car safety seat loan programme, Austria:
www.childsafetyeurope.org/publications/goodpracticeguide/info/casestudies/a
ustria-car-safety-seats.pdf
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Injury Prevention &
Control: Motor Vehicle Safety. Child Passenger Safety: Fact Sheet:
www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Child_Passenger_Safety/CPSFactsheet.html
9. Common Position (EC) No 63/2002 - adopted by the Council on 14 November
2002.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2002:299E:0038:0044:EN:
PDF
10. Council Directive of 16 December 1991 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 (91/671/EEC):
11. http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&typ
e_doc=Directive&an_doc=1991&nu_doc=671&lg=en
12. 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.
http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc
&lg=EN&numdoc=32003L0020
161
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
13. Draft new Regulation on uniform provisions concerning the approval of
enhanced Child Restraint Systems used onboard of motor vehicles:
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2011/wp29grsp/ECE-TRANSWP.29-GRSP-2011-21e.pdf
14. ERSO, DaCoTA: Traffic safety basic facts 2010: Children (Aged<15):
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/statistics/dacota/bfs2010_dacota
-trl-1-3-children.pdf
15. ETSC Fact Sheet 02/05 Seat Belts and Child Restraints:
www.etsc.eu/documents/Fact_Sheet_SBU.pdf
16. ETSC Fact Sheet 11/06 Promoting Child Safety Restraints:
www.etsc.eu/documents/Fact_Sheet_Child_Safety_Restraints.pdf
17. European Child Safety Alliance – A Guide to Child Safety Regulations and
Standards in Europe: www.childsafetyeurope.org/publications/info/childsafety-regulations-standards.pdf
18. European Commission website “Road Safety – Going Abroad”
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/mobile/going_abroad/index_en.htm
19. GlobalAutoRegs Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems (CRS):
http://globalautoregs.com/groups/22
20. ISO 13216-3:2006. Road vehicles -- Anchorages in vehicles and attachments
to anchorages for child restraint systems -- Part 3: Classification of child
restraint dimensions and space in vehicle
www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
37419
21. ISO 13216-2:2004. Road vehicles -- Anchorages in vehicles and attachments
to anchorages for child restraint systems -- Part 2: Top tether anchorages and
attachments
www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
36058
22. ISO 13216-1:1999. Road vehicles -- Anchorages in vehicles and attachments
to anchorages for child restraint systems -- Part 1: Seat bight anchorages and
attachments.
www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=
30437
23. The National Social Marketing Centre - ShowCase - Increasing child restraint
use in motor vehicles: www.thensmc.com/resources/showcase/increasingchild-restraint-use-motor-vehicles?view=all and
www.thensmc.com/sites/default/files/Hispanic%20car%20seats%20FULL%20
case%20study.pdf
162
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
24. Northern Territory Australia Child Restraint Law:
www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/campaign/seatbelts/index.shtml
25. RAC - Driving abroad, European motoring advisor:
www.rac.co.uk/driving-abroad/
26. Regulation No 44 of the Economic Commission for Europe of the United
Nations (UN/ECE) — Uniform provisions concerning the approval of
restraining devices for child occupants of power driven vehicles (‘child
restraint systems’)
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_330/l_33020051216en00560157.p
df
27. South Australia’s Child Restraint Laws:
http://sa.gov.au/subject/Transport%2C+travel+and+motoring/Road+safety/Se
atbelts+and+child+restraints/South+Australia's+child+restraint+laws
28. South Australia Guide to Child Restraint Laws for Parents
www.sa.gov.au/upload/franchise/Transport,%20travel%20and%20motoring/R
oad%20safety/child_restraint_MAC_110610.pdf
29. Summary of the main design requirements of ECE R44.04:
www.childcarseats.org.uk/standards/r4403.htm
30. UNECE Working Party on Passive Safety (GRSP):
www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/meeting_docs_grsp.html
31. USA FAQ with
safety.org/faq.html
useful
links
embedded
throughout:
www.car-
32. Vienna Convention on Road Traffic (1968) held by the Economic Commission
for Europe: www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/crt1968e.pdf
33. Protection of new-borns: field survey – V. Hervé – 6th international Conferen
Protection of children in cars – December 2008 - Munich - Germany
34. Traffic responsibility actions, the “bosom budies” action – B. Horak – 9th
International Conference Protection of Children in Cars December 2010,
Munich – Germany
35. Culture counts: Meeting the road safety needs of newcomers – N. Zeitoun –
8th International Conference Protection of Children in Cars December 2010,
Munich – Germany
36. World Health Organisation – Detailed Road Safety Profiles by Country:
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/country_profiles/
en/index.html
163
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
37. World Health Organisation – Manifesto for Safe Communities:
www.safecommunities.ca/images/Documents/Uploads/Manifesto.pdf
38. World Health Organisation – Seat-belt and child restraint laws, enforcement
and wearing rates by country/area:
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/data/table_a4.pdf
39. Agran, P.F., Anderson, C. & Winn, D.G. (2006). Development of a Child
Safety Seat Hassles Scale in a Largely Low-Income Latino Population.
Pediatrics, 2006, 118, e85-e91.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/e85.full.pdf+html
40. ANEC (2006). ANEC position on UNECE Regulation 44: Requirements for
child restraint systems. ANEC-TRAF-2006-G-040.
www.anec.org/attachments/ANEC-TRAF-2006-G-040.pdf
41. Anitsal, I., Anitsal, M.M. & Liska, K. (2010). Nation’s First Statewide Seatbelt
and Booster Seat Education Campaign: Ollie Otter’s Child Booster Seat
Safety Program. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 2, 1-14.
http://www.aabri.com/manuscripts/09262.pdf
42. Brixey, S.N., Corden, T.E., Guse, C.E. & Layde, P.M. (2011). Booster seat
legislation: does it work for all children? Injury Prevention, 2011, 17, 233-237.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/4/233.full
43. Brixey, S. Ravindran, K. & Guse, C.E. (2010). Legislating child restraint
usage – Its effect on self-reported child restraint use rates in a central city.
Journal of Safety Research, 41 (1), 47-52.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437510000095
44. Brown, J. Fell, D. & Bilston, L.E. (2010). Shoulder Height Labelling of Child
Restraints to Minimize Premature Graduation. Pediatrics, 126 (3) 490-497.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/3/490.full.pdf
45. Bruce, B.S., Snowdon, A.W., Cunningham, C., Cramm, C.L., Whittle, K.,
Correale, H., Barwick, M., Piotrowski, C., Warda, L. & Harrold, J. (2011).
Predicting parents’ use of booster seats. Injury Prevention, 2011, 17, 313318.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/17/5/313.full.pdf+html
46. Chang, B.A., Ebel, B.E., Rivara, F.P. (2002). Child passenger safety:
potential impact of the Washington State booster seat laws on childcare
centers. Injury Prevention, 2002 (8), 284-288.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/4/284.full.pdf+html
47. Children’s Safety Network (2005). Child Seats: How Large are the Benefits
and Who Should Pay? National Injury and Violence Prevention Resource
Center. (Based on methodology of Miller et al.)
http://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/publications_resources/PDF/cps/child_
safety_seats_childhood_injury_cost_prevention.pdf
164
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
48. Christie, N, Cairns, S, Towner, E, Ward, H, ‘How exposure information can
enhance our understanding of child traffic ‘‘death leagues’’ Injury Prevention
2007;13:125–129 http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/2/125.full.pdf
49. Department for Transport (2011). Reported road casualties in Great Britain:
annual report 2010. http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/road-accidentsand-safety-annual-report-2010/rrcgb2010-all-pdf-files.zip
50. Department for Transport (2010). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain
2009.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110503151558/http://www.dft.gov
.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/221549/227755/rrcgb2009.pdf
51. Desapriya, E.B.R., Pike, I. & Joshi, P. (2005). Prices and affordability in child
restraint seats in Japan. Injury Prevention, 11 (2), 125.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/2/125.1.full
52. Dubner, S.J. & Levitt, S.D. (2005). Freakonomics: The Seat-Belt Solution.
The New York Times, July 10, 2005.
www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/magazine/10FREAK.html?_r=1&ex=11899152
00&en=641c83d4b0668293&ei=5070
53. Ehiri, J.E., Ejere, H.O.D., Magnussen, L., Emusu, D., King, W., Osberg, S.J.
(2009). Interventions for promoting booster seat use in four to eight year olds
travelling in motor vehicles (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, 2009, Issue 1. Wiley.
54. Ekman, R., Welander, G., Svanström, B.L. & Schelp, L. (2001). Long-term
effects of legislation and local promotion of child restraint use in motor
vehicles in Sweden. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33 (6), 793-7.
55. Elvik, R., Vaa, T. (Eds.) (2004). The handbook of road safety measures.
Elsevier.
56. European Child Safety Alliance (2003). A guide to child safety regulations
and standards in Europe. ISBN: 90-6788-288-7.
http://www.childsafetyeurope.org/publications/info/child-safety-regulationsstandards.pdf
57. FIA Foundation for the Automobile and Society (2009). Seat Belts & Child
Restraints: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers and Practitioners. FIA
Foundation: London. ISBN 978-0-9561403-0-2.
http://www.grsproadsafety.org/page-good_practice-347.html?gp_id=4
58. Greenberg-Seth, J., Hemenway, D., Gallagher, S.S., Ross, J.B. & Lissy, K.S.
(2004). Evaluation of a Community-Based Intervention to Promote Rear
Seating for Children. American Journal of Public Health, 94 (6).
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.94.6.1009
165
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
59. Hayes, M (2006). BMJ Editorial : Child Safety in Cars. BMJ 2006;333:1183.
(http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7580/1183.full)
60. Hendrie, D., Miller, T.R., Orlando, M., Spicer, R.S., Taft, C., Consunji, R. &
Zaloshnja, E. (2004). Child and family safety device affordability by country
income level: an 18 country comparison. Injury Prevention 2004:10:338-343.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/6/338.full
61. Howard, A., Beben, N., Rothman, L., Fiissel, D. & MacArthur, C. (2006).
62. Evaluation of Safe Kids Week 2004: Age 4 to 9? It’s Booster Seat Time!
Injury Prevention 2006;12:316–319.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/5/316.full.pdf+html
63. Huber, P.W. & Litan, R.E. (Eds), (1991). The Liability Maze: The Impact of
Liability Law on Safety and Innovation. Brookings Institution.
64. Iwase, N., Desapriya, E.B.R., Brussoni, M., Rajabali, F. & Guanghong, H.
(2003). Child casualties before and after enactment of child restraint seats
(CRS) legislation in Japan. IATSS Research, 27 (2).
www.iatss.or.jp/pdf/research/27/27-2-08.pdf
65. Javouhey, E., Guérin, A-C., Gadegbeku, B., Chiron, M., Floret, D. (2006). Are
restrained children under 15 years of age in cars as effectively protected as
adults? Archives of disease in childhood. 91, 304-308.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/91/4/304.full
66. Kirk, A, Lesire, P, Schick, S (April 2012) Road Reality Status (fatality studies),
Deliverable 3.2.1 of the EC FP7 Project CASPER
67. Maitre, M. (2008). ISO information on CRS International Standards GRSP –
Informal group on Child Restraint System. Presentation:
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2008/wp29grsp/CRS-03-04e.pdf
68. Miller, T.R., Demes, J.C., Bovbjerg, R.R. (1993). Child seats: how large are
the benefits and who should pay? Child occupant protection, SP-986.
Warrendale, PA: Society for Automotive Engineers, 1993:81–90.
http://papers.sae.org/933089
69. Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E. & Hendrie, D. (2006). Cost-Outcome Analysis of
Booster Seats for Auto Occupants Aged 4 to 7 Years. Pediatrics, 118 (5),
1994-1998.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/5/1994.full
70. Miller, T.R., Zaloshnja, E. & Sheppard, M.A. (2002). Are child safety seat
distribution and misuse reduction programs sound investments? Conference
paper #49231: The 130th Annual Meeting of APHA, Tuesday, November 12,
2002 - 8:30 AM.
http://apha.confex.com/apha/130am/techprogram/paper_49231.htm
166
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
71. Moch, J.W. & Borja, A. (1993). Deadly Child Restraints: An Analysis of the
Legislation and Defects Associated with Child Restraint Devices. 20 Western
State University Law Review 527 (1992-1993).
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.jour
nals/wsulr20&div=29&id=&page=
72. Phelan, K.J., Khoury, J., Grossman, D.C., Hu, D., Wallace, L.JD., Bill, N. &
Kalkwarf, H. (2002). Pediatric motor vehicle related injuries in the Navajo
Nation: the impact of the 1988 child occupant restraint laws. Injury
Prevention, 2002, 8, 216–220.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/3/216.full.pdf+html
73. Reeve, K.N., Zurynski, Y.A., Elliott, E.J. & Bilston, L. (2007). Seatbelts and
the law: how well do we protect Australian children? The Medical Journal of
Australia: Public Health. 186 (12), 635-638.
www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_12_180607/ree11303_fm.pdf
74. Rice, T.M & Anderson, C.L. (2009). The Effectiveness of Child Restraint
Systems for Children Aged 3 Years or Younger During Motor Vehicle
Collisions: 1996 to 2005. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (2), 252-257.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622795/
75. Sonkin, B., Edwards, P., Roberts, I. & Green, J. (2006). Walking, cycling and
transport safety: an analysis of child road deaths. Journal of the Royal
Society of Medicine, 2006 (99), 402-405.
www.20splentyforus.org.uk/UsefulReports/Walking%20cycling%20and%20tra
nsport%20safety%20an%20analysis%20of%20child.pdf
76. Spinks, A., Turner, C., Nixon, J., McClure, R.J. (2009). The 'WHO Safe
Communities' model for the prevention of injury in whole populations.
Cochrane Summaries. http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004445/the-whosafe-communities-model-for-the-prevention-of-injury-in-whole-populations
77. Sun, K., Bauer, M.J., & Hardman, S. (2010). Effects of Upgraded Child
Restraint Law Designed to Increase Booster Seat Use in New York.
Pediatrics, 126 (3), 484-489.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/3/484.full
78. Tsoumakas, K., Mavridi, F., Matziou, V. & Androulakis, I. (2008). Parents’
knowledge and attitudes about preventing injuries in motor vehicle accidents
in children in Greece. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(2):129–134.
79. Will, K. E., Sabo, C. S., & Porter, B. E. (2009). Evaluation of The Boost ‘em in
the Back Seat Program: Using fear and efficacy to increase booster seat use.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 57-65.
www.boosterseats4safety.org/evalpub.pdf
80. Wismans, J.; Waagmeester, K.; Le Claire, M.; Hynd, D.; de Jager, Kate;
Palisson, A.; van Ratingen, M.; Trosseille, X: “Q-Dummies Report – Advanced
167
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Child Dummies and Injury Criteria for Frontal Impact”, EEVC Report 514,
2008
81. World Health Organisation (2009). Global status report on road safety: time
for action. Geneva. ISBN 978 92 4 156384 0.
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2009/en/
82. [Bendjellal et al., 2006] F. Bendjellal, M. Bennett, S. Carine: “Reducing
Misuse of Child Restraint Systems – An Attempt to Treat Loose Harness
Problem”; Protection of Children in Cars, 4th International Conference;
Munich 2006
83. [Bendjellal et al., 2007] F. Bendjellal, S. Carine, E. Böhringer : “Child
Restraint Systems: History, Present and Future Safety Challenges”;
Protection of Children in Cars, 5th International Conference; Munich 2007
84. [Bendjellal, 2008] F. Bendjellal: “Misuse: Recent Evaluations in Ireland and
France – The need for a continuous and consistent parents´ education and
development of technical solutions”; Protection of Children in Cars, 6th
International Conference; Munich 2008
85. [Bohman et al., 2006] K. Bohman, O. Boström, M. Eriksson, A.-L. Osvalder:
“Frontal Impact Protection of Children on Booster Cushions – an Attitude,
Handling and Safety Approach”; Protection of Children in Cars, 4th
International Conference, Munich 2006
86. [Boyraz et al., 2007] P. Boyraz, M. Acar, J. Bennett: “Self- adjusting,
Integrated Child Restraint System”; Protection of Children in Cars, 5th
International Conference; Munich 2007
87. [Brämig, 2006] F.-H. Brämig:” Child Seat Presence and Orientation Detection
CPOD (ISOcare)”; Protection of Children in Cars, 6th International
Conference; Munich 2006
88. [Gallegos et al., 2010] D. Gallegos, F. Liesa, A. Longton, G. Tejera :
“Analysing Misuse Trends in Child Restraint Systems. The Idea of Including a
Global Indicator for ISOFIX and
89. Toptether Correct Fixation.”; Protection of Children in Cars, 8th International
Conference, Munich 2010
90. [Jakobsson et al. 2007] L. Jakobsson, H. Wiberg, I. Isaksson-Hellman, J.
Gustafsson: “Rear Seat Safety for Children Aged 4 and Above – a New
Integrated 2-stage Booster Cushion”; Protection of Children in Cars, 5th
International Conference; Munich 2007
91. [Jakobsson et al., 2009] L. Jakobsson, I. Isaksson-Hellman, M. Lindman:
“Positive trend of proper restraint usage – injury reduction for children aged 412”; Protection of Children in Cars, 7th International Conference; Munich ,
2009
168
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
92. [Johannsen et al., 2010] H. Johannsen, M. Schipper, V. Schindler: “Is it
possible to optimise the rear seat for children (6 YO and above) and adults?”
Protection of Children in Cars, 8th International Conference; Munich 2010
93. [Lumley 1, 2009] M. Lumley: “Revised Australian and New Zealand CRS
Standard”; Protection of Children in Cars, 7th International Conference;
Munich 2009
94. [Lumley 2, 2009] M. Lumley : “Improving Occupant Safety of Booster Seats”;
Protection of Children in Cars, 7th International Conference; Munich 2009
95. [Martinez et al., 2011] L. Martinez, A. Garcia, M. Espanteleón: “Benefita of
Using a Harness Pretensioner in Group I CRS”; Protection of Children in
Cars, 9th International Conference; Munich 2011
96. [Müller et al., 2009] G. Müller, J.-P. Borgmann, H. Johannsen: “Technical
options for reduction of misuse group 1 CRS”; Protection of Children in Cars,
7th International Conference; Munich 2009
97. [Truckenbrodt, 2005] G. Truckenbrodt: “Integrated child seats in cars – New
concepts to improved child safety”; Protection of Children in Cars, 3rd
International Conference; Munich 2005
98. Zaza, S., Sleet, D.A., Thompson, R.S., Sosin, D.M., Bolen, J.C. and the Task
Force on Community Preventative Services (2001). Review of evidence
regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(Suppl. 4):31–47.
http://thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/mvoi-AJPM-evrev-child-safety-seat.pdf
99. [CHILD Deliverable 1.2.2] CHILD Deliverable 1.2.2 for the EU Project
“CHILD”, http://www.casper-project.eu/previous-studies/child/
100.
[Daimler, 2011] Daimler: “Euro NCAP Advanced – Assessment Dossier
for “Child Seat Presence and Orientation Detection System (CPOD)” on the
Mercedes-Benz SLK (2011)”; Euro NCAP TWG Document TWG-11-09-04;
2011
101.
[Daimler, 2012] Daimler AG: “Das Insassenschutzsystem PRE-SAFE”,
www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1301676-49-1301941-1-0-0-1302066-0-0-1350-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html
102.
[Ford, 2011] Ford Motor Company: „Ford Introduces Industry´s First
Inflatable Seat Belts to Enhance Rear Seat Safety” 26.01.2011;
http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31360
103.
ISO/TS 22239-1:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and
orientation detection system (CPOD) – Part 1: Specifications and test
methods
104.
ISO/TS 22239-2:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and
orientation detection system (CPOD) – Part 2: Resonator specification
169
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
105.
ISO/TS 22239-3:2009: Road vehicles – Child seat presence and
orientation detection system (CPOD) – Part 3: Labelling
106.
[Maitre, 2008] M. Maitre: “ISO Information on CRS International
Standards“; GRSP Informal Group on Child Restraint Systems Doc. CRS-0304e; 2008
107.
[Müller et al., 2010] G. Müller, H. Johannsen, W. Fastenmeier:
“Fehlgebrauch der Airbagabschaltung bei der Beförderung von Kindern in
Kinderschutzsystemen“; Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Heft
F75; Bergisch Gladbach, 2010
108.
[Prudenz, 2012] K. Prudenz: „Aktives Gurtschloss: Mercedes-Benz
verbessert den Schutz der Fondpassagiere“; ATZ online,
www.atzonlinen.de/Aktuell/Nachrichten/1/15341/Aktives-GurtschlossMercedes-Benz-verbessert-den-Schutz-fuer-Fondpassagiere.html
170
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
APPENDIX A.
Cyprus
England
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Portugal
Scotland
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Wales
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
2
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
0
2
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
0
1
0
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
1
2
0
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Czech
Republic
Belgium
National law requiring use of appropriate child
and adolescent passenger restraint
National law requiring children to remain
seated in rear facing car seats until the age
four years
National law requiring children and
adolescents to remain seated in the back seat
of a motor vehicle until the age 13 years
National law requiring graduated licensing for
new drivers
National law banning children from
riding/driving farm tractors
National law banning children from
riding/driving all terrain vehicles (e.g., ATVs,
three-wheelers, four-wheelers)
National ministry/government department with
mandated responsibility for child and
adolescent passenger safety
Government approved national strategy with
specific targets and timelines related to child
and adolescent passenger safety
National programme of child home visits that
includes education on child passenger safety
National media campaign at least once in the
past five years targeting child and adolescent
passenger safety
Austria
Eurosafe 2009 Data
Collated from individual report cards: http://www.childsafetyeurope.org/reportcards/downloads.html Green 2= Existing, clearly
stated, implemented and enforced; Amber 1= Existing, clearly stated, but only partly implemented or enforced; Red 0= Not existing
or not clearly stated
171
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
APPENDIX B.
GHSA Table of USA CRS Laws by State
State
Alabama
Alaska
American
Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Child Restraint Required
unless indicated, # refers to Yrs.(Lbs.)
Adult Safety Belt
Permissible
unless indicated, # refers
to Yrs.(Lbs.)
Maximum Fine
1st Offence
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat; 1 - 4 (or 20 - 40) in forwardfacing child safety seat; 5 (but not
yet 6) in booster seat
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat; 1 - 4 (and >20) in child safety
seat; 4 - 7 (and 20 - 64 lbs. or <57")
in booster seat
<4
6 - 14
$25 + points
>4 (and >65 or >57")
8-16 (and <65 or <57")
$15 + points
>4
No data
<5
<5 (and <60)
<5 (or <60) in a rear seat if
available
<1 (and <20) in rear-facing infant
seat in rear seat if available; 1 - 3
(and 20 - 40) in child safety seat; 4
- 7 in booster seat
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing restraint
system; 1 - 6 (and <60) in child
restraint system; booster seats only
w/ a lap and shoulder belt
<7 (and <66)
<7
<3
<8 (and <57") in rear seat if
available
Not permissible
6 - 14 (or >60)
6 - 15 (or >60)
$50
$100
$100 + points
8 - 15
$82
7 - 15 (and >60)
$60 ($15 for 4 16 and >40 lbs.)
8 - 15 (or >66)
8 - 15
4-5
>57"; >40 lbs. in rear
seat can use lap belt if
lap/shoulder belt
unavailable
>12
$25
$75 + points
$60 + points
$50 + points
<12 in child restraint or booster
seat
<3 in child safety seat; 4 - 7 in
booster seat or child restraint
<7
172
4 - 7 (and >4'9"); 4 - 7
(and >40 lbs.) in rear
seat can use lap belt if
lap/shoulder belt
unavailable
Not permissible
$100
$100
$69
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Illinois
<7
Indiana
<7
Iowa
<1 (and <20) in a rear-facing child
seat; 1 - 5 in child restraint
<3 in child restraint; 4 - 7 (and <80
8 - 13; 4 - 7 (and >80 or
or <57") in child restraint or booster >57")
seat
<40" in child restraint; <6 (and
<6 (and >50")
between 40" and 50") in booster
seat
Kansas
Kentucky
8 - 15; >40 lbs. in rear
seat if only lap belt
available
8 - 15; >40 lbs. can use
lap belt if lap/shoulder
belt unavailable
6 - 17
Louisiana
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing child
safety seat; 1 - 3 (or 20 - 39) in
forward-facing child safety seat; 4 5 (or 40 - 60) in booster seat
Maine
<40 lbs. in child safety seat; 40 - 80
lbs. and <8 yrs. in safety system
that elevates child so that adult
safety belt fits properly; <11 (and
<100) in rear seat if available
Maryland
<8 (and <57" and <65 lbs.)
Massachusetts <7 (and <57")
Michigan
<7 (and <57"); <4 in rear seat if
available
6 -12 (or >60)
8 - 17 (or <18 yrs. and
>4'9")
$75
$25 + points
$25
$60
$50 child
restraint;
$30 booster
seat
$100
$50 (max. $250
for subsequent
offences)
8 - 15 (or >57" or 65 lbs.) $25
8 - 12 (or >57")
$25
8 - 15 (or >57")
$10 for <4; $25
for 4 - 8 and
under 4'9"
Minnesota
<7 (and <57")
>8 (or >57”)
$50
Mississippi
<4 in child restraint; 4 - 6 (and <57" >7 (or >57" or >65 lbs.)
$25
or <65 lbs.) in booster seat
Missouri
<4 (or <40) in child safety seat; 4 - 8 - 16; >4 (and >80 or
$50; $10 for
7 (and 40 - 80 and <4'9") in child
>4'9")
>80 lbs. or
>4'9"
safety seat or booster seat; >4
years (and >80 or >4'9") in booster
seat or safety belt; if all safety
restraints in use, <16 in rear seat
Montana
<6 (and <60)
Not permissible
$100
Nebraska
<5
6 - 17
$25 + points
Nevada
<6 (and <60)
Not permissible
$500 (min.
$100)
New Hampshire <5 (and <55")
6 - 17 (or <6 and >55")
$50
New Jersey
<8 (and <80) in rear seat if
Not permissible
No less than
173
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
available
New Mexico
North Carolina
<1 in rear-facing infant seat in rear
seat if available; 1 - 4 (or <40) in
child safety seat; 5 - 6 (or <60) in
booster seat
<3 unless >40 lbs. and no
lap/shoulder belt available; 4 - 7
unless no lap/shoulder belt
available
<7 (and <80)
North Dakota
<6
New York
(and <57" or <80 lbs.)
Northern
<5 (or <70)
Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
<4 (or <40) in child safety seat; 4 7 (and >40 and <4'9") in booster
seat
<5
Oregon
Child seat required to 40 lbs. or
max upper weight limit of seat;
rear-facing to 1 yr & 20 lbs; booster
seat for children over 40 lbs but <
age 8 or < 4'9" tall
Pennsylvania
<7
Puerto Rico
<4
Rhode Island
<7 (and <80 and <57") in rear seat
if available
South Carolina <1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat; 1 - 5 (and 20 - 39) in forwardfacing child safety seat; 1 - 5 (and
40 - 80) in booster seat secured by
lap/shoulder belt (lap belt alone is
not permissible); <5 in rear seat if
available
South Dakota
<5 (and <40)
Tennessee
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat; 1 - 3 (and >20) in forward174
7 - 17
$10 + court
fees
$25
8 - 15 (or >40); 4 - 7 if
no lap/shoulder belt
available
$100 + points
8 - 15 (or 40 - 80 lbs. in
seats w/out shoulder
belts)
7 - 17; <6 (and >80 and
>57"); <6 (and >40) can
use lap belt if
lap/shoulder belts
unavailable
>5 (or >70)
$25 + $188
court costs +
points
$25 + 1 pt.
8 - 14
$75
6 - 12; >40 lbs. in rear
seat can use lap belt if
lap/shoulder belt
unavailable
8-15 (or >4'9")
$50 (up to $207.90
with court costs)
Not permissible
>5
<7 (and >80 or >57"); 8 17
1 - 5 (and >80) or <5 if
child's knees bend over
the seat edge when
sitting up straight with
his/her back firmly
against the seat back
$50 - $250
$142 ($97 plus
$45 surcharge)
$100
$100
$75
$150
5 - 17 (or >40)
$25
9 - 15 (or <12 and >4'9") $50
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virgin Islands
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total States
facing infant seat; 4 - 8 (and <4'9")
in booster seat; <8 (and <4'9") in
rear seat if available; rear seat
recommended for 9 - 12
<7 (and <57")
<7 (and <57")
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat in rear seat unless front
passenger airbag is deactivated; 2
- 7 (and >20)
<5
<7; rear-facing devices in rear seat
if available; if not, in front seat only
if front passenger airbag is
deactivated
<8 (and <4'9"); <13 in rear seat if
practical
<7
Not permissible
8 - 15 (or >57")
8 - 17 (and >20)
$25
$45
$25
>3
$25 to $250
$50
8 - 17 (4 - 7 with
physician's exemption)
8 - 15 (or <8 and >4'9");
>40 lbs. in position
where only lap belt
available
<7 (and >4'9)
<8 (and >80 and >57")
(and <4'9")
<1 (or <20) in rear-facing infant
seat; 1 - 3 (and 20 - 40) in forwardfacing child safety seat; 4 - 7 (and
40 - 80 and <57") in booster seat;
<3 in rear seat if available
<8 in rear seat if available
Not permissible
$124 to driver if
passenger <16;
to passenger if
>16
$20
$75
$50
50 + D.C., Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands
Original Sources: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and State Highway Safety
Offices.
Table Source: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/childsafety_laws.html
175
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
APPENDIX C.
Most important differences between ECE Reg. 44 and ECE Reg. 1XX
176
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
APPENDIX D.
List of CRS adapted for disabled children’s usage
Low-birth-weight babies
Convertible seat for 3-40lbs
No minimum weight (RF)
4 lb minimum (RF)
Side facing
For babies who must lie flat
Large convertible seats
up to 50 lbs
Brand
Combi
Combi
Combi
Team Tex
Britax
Britax
Chicco
Chicco
Cybex
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dream On
Graco
Orbit baby
Summer Infant
Model
coccoro
navette 22
Shuttle 33
BabyRide
B-Safe
Chaperone
Keyfit
Keyfit 30
Aton
Comfy Carry
Comfy Carry Elite
SureFit/onBoard
Me Mia Moda Certo
Snugride 30
Infant G2
Prodigy
Angel Guard
Dorel Cosco
Merritt Manufacturing
Angel Ride Infant Car Bed
Dream Ride SE
Hope Car Bed
Britax
Britax
Britax
Britax
Britax
Britax
Britax
Diono
Diono
Diono
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Dorel
Maxi-Cosi
Evenflo
Evenflo
Evenflo
Evenflo
Evenflo
Graco
Advocate 70 CS
Boulevard 70
Boulevard 70 CS
Marathon 70
Marathon classic
Roundabout 50 classic
roundabout 55
Radian R100
Radian R120
Radian RXT
Alpha Omega
AO Elite
Elite
Luxe
All in one
3-in-1
Deluxe
Complete Air
Complete Air 65
Pria 70
Momentum 65
Symphony 65
Titan elite
Titan Sport
Triumph advance
Myride 65
177
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Graco
Recaro
Smart seat
Como Proride
Britax
Lilly Gold Div.
Hippo
TriplePlay Sit'n Stroll
Special convertible seats
Large FF CRS
Snug Seat
Special Tomato
Multi-positioning seats
Frontier 85 SICT
Traveller Plus EL
Spirit #2400
Apex 65
Essential air
Rumi air
Go Hybrid
Generations 65
Dale Earnhardt
Churchill
ProSport
Peppino
Ride Safer Travel Vests
Rolyan Tumble Forms
Carrie Seats
Pilot Special Needs
Booster
EZ
Gresham
Kinedyne
Ortho Safe
Q'Straint
Safe Haven
Lock wheelchair docking
system
Secure-Lok
Sure-Lok
Systems protector
Q'Straint
New Haven
Bergeron
Britax
Columbia
Dorel
Evenflo
KidsEmbrace
Merritt Manufacturing
Recaro
Reha-Partner
Safe Traffic system
SammonsPreston
Wheelchair Tie-Downs
Safety seats for ambulance transport
SafeGuard Transport
Serenity Products
Dorel
Convertible seats
178
Guardian Safety Seat
DreamRide SE
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
APPENDIX E.
make
model
year of introduction
Alfa Romeo
147 (973)
2001
Alfa Romeo
156 FL (932)
2003
Alfa Romeo
159 (939)
2006
Alfa Romeo
159 FL (939)
2008
Alfa Romeo
Brera (939)
2005
Alfa Romeo
Giulietta (940)
2010
Alfa Romeo
Mito (955)
2008
Audi
A1 (8X)
2010
Audi
A2 4-seater (8Z)
1994
Audi
A3 (AB1 8L)
1996
Audi
A3 (AB2 8P)
2003
Audi
A3 Cabrio (8P)
2008
Audi
A3 FL3 (8P)
2010
Audi
A3 Sportback (8PA)
2004
Audi
A3 Sportback FL (8PA)
2008
Audi
A4 (B5 - 8D)
1994
Audi
A4 (B6 8E)
2000
Audi
A4 (B7 8E)
2004
Audi
A4 (B8 8K)
2007
Audi
A4 Avant (B7 8E)
2004
Audi
A4 Cabrio (B6 8E)
2002
Audi
A4 Cabrio (B7 8E)
2006
Audi
A5 (B8 8F)
2007
Audi
A5 Cabrio (B8 8F)
2009
Audi
A5 Cabrio FL (B8 8F)
2011
Audi
A5 FL (B8 8F)
2011
Audi
A5 Sportback 4 seater (B8)
2011
Audi
A5 Sportback 5 seater (B8)
2011
Audi
A6 (4F)
2005
Audi
A6 (C7)
2011
Audi
A6 Avant (C5 4B)
1997
Audi
A6 AVANT (C6 4F)
2005
Audi
A6 Avant (C7)
2011
Audi
A7 Sportback (4G)
2010
Audi
A7 Sportback 5-seater (4G)
2011
Audi
A8 (4H)
2010
179
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Audi
A8 (D2 4D)
1994
Audi
A8 (D3 4E)
2002
Audi
Q3 (8U)
2011
Audi
Q5 (8R)
2008
Audi
Q7 (4L)
2006
Audi
R8 (42)
2006
Audi
TT I Coupé (8N)
2003
Audi
TT II Coupé (8J)
2006
Audi
TT II Roadster (8J)
2007
BMW
1 (E87)
2004
BMW
1 (F20)
2011
BMW
1 Cabrio FL (E88)
2011
BMW
1 Coupé FL (E82)
2011
BMW
3 Cabrio (E93)
2007
BMW
3 Coupe (E92 LCI)
2010
BMW
3 FL (E90)
2008
BMW
3 Touring FL (E46/C3)
2001
BMW
3 Touring FL (E91)
2008
BMW
5 (E60)
2003
BMW
5 (F10)
2010
BMW
5 Touring (E61)
2005
BMW
6 Cabrio (6C - F12)
2011
BMW
6 Coupe (6C)
2011
BMW
7 (F01)
2008
BMW
Mini (R56)
2006
BMW
Mini 2 FL (R56)
2010
BMW
Mini Clubman (R55)
2007
BMW
Mini One (R53)
2004
BMW
X1 (E84)
2009
BMW
X3 (E83)
2004
BMW
X3 (F25)
2010
BMW
X5 (X70 / E70)
2007
BMW
X6 (E71)
2008
Chevrolet
Aveo (KLAS)
2011
Chevrolet
Aveo hatchback (KL1T)
2011
Chevrolet
Camaro Cabrio (GMX511)
2011
Chevrolet
Captiva (KLAC)
2006
Chevrolet
Matiz II (KLAK)
2005
Chevrolet
Orlando (KL1Y)
2011
Chevrolet
Spark (KL 1M)
2010
Chrysler
Grand Voyager (RT)
2008
Chrysler
Voyager IV (RG)
2001
180
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Citroen
C1 5 door, 4 seater
2005
Citroen
C2 3 door 4 seater (J)
2003
Citroen
C3 (F)
2010
Citroen
C3 2nd generation 5 door (S)
2009
Citroen
C3 Picasso (SH)
2009
Citroen
C4 (L)
2004
Citroen
C4 3 door (L)
2004
Citroen
C4 II (N)
2010
Citroen
C4 Picasso
2006
Citroen
C4 Picasso FL (U)
2010
Citroen
C5 (R)
2008
Citroen
C5 FL (R)
2010
Citroen
C5 Tourer (R)
2008
Citroen
C5 Tourer FL (R)
2010
Citroen
C6 (T)
2005
Citroen
C8 (E)
2002
Citroen
C-Crosser (V)
2007
Citroen
DS3 (S)
2010
Citroen
DS4 (N)
2011
Citroen
Evasion (A)
2000
Citroen
Grand C4 Picasso (U)
2006
Citroen
Grand C4 Picasso FL (U)
2010
Citroen
Nemo (A)
2007
Citroen
XSARA-Picasso (C)
1997
Dacia
Duster (SD)
2010
Dacia
Logan (SD)
2008
Dacia
Logan MCV (SD) Facelift
2009
Dacia
Sandero (SD)
2008
FIAT
500 (312)
2007
FIAT
Bravo (198)
2007
FIAT
Croma II (194)
2005
FIAT
Croma II FL (194)
2008
FIAT
Doblo (263)
2010
FIAT
Freemont (JC)
2011
FIAT
Grande Punto (199)
2006
FIAT
Idea (350)
2003
FIAT
Multipla (186)
2004
FIAT
Panda (169)
2003
FIAT
Punto FL (199)
2011
FIAT
Sedici (189)
2007
FIAT
Seicento (187)
1998
Ford
C-Max (DM2)
2003
181
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Ford
C-Max (DXA)
2010
Ford
Fiesta 5 door (JA8)
2008
Ford
Focus (C307)
2004
Ford
Focus (C346)
2011
Ford
Focus (DYB)
2011
Ford
Focus FL (DA3)
2008
Ford
Focus Turnier (DYB)
2011
Ford
Focus Turnier FL (C170)
2001
Ford
Fusion (JU2)
2002
Ford
Galaxy (WA6)
2006
Ford
Galaxy FL (WA6)
2010
Ford
Grand_C-Max_(DXA)
2010
Ford
Ka (RU8)
2009
Ford
Kuga (DM2)
2008
Ford
Mondeo FL (B5Y)
2003
Ford
Mondeo FL (BA7)
2010
Ford
Mondeo Turnier (BA7)
2007
Ford
Mondeo Turnier FL (BA7)
2010
Ford
S Max FL (WA6)
2010
Ford
S-MAX
2006
Ford
Tourneo Connect (PJ2)
2009
Ford
Transit Kombi (FSG6)
2011
Honda
Accord (CU3)
2008
Honda
Accord FL (CA5)
2011
Honda
Accord Tourer FL (CM2)
2011
Honda
Civic (FD)
2006
Honda
Civic 8 hatchback (FK)
2006
Honda
Civic 9 (FK)
2012
Honda
CR-V (RE6)
2006
Honda
Fr-V (BE)
2005
Honda
Insight 2 (ZE2)
2009
Honda
Jazz (AA)
2011
Honda
Legend (KB1)
2006
Hyundai
Atos (MX)
2004
Hyundai
Genesis Coupé (BK38)
2010
Hyundai
i10 (PA)
2008
Hyundai
i10 FL (PA)
2011
Hyundai
i30 (FD)
2007
Hyundai
i30 (FDH)
2010
Hyundai
i30 CW (FD)
2008
Hyundai
i30 cw (FDH)
2010
Hyundai
i40 cw (VF)
2011
182
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Hyundai
ix20 (JC)
2010
Hyundai
ix35 (ELH)
2010
Hyundai
Santa Fe FL (CM)
2010
Hyundai
Sonata (NF)
2004
Hyundai
Veloster (FS)
2011
Jeep
Grand Cherokee (WK2)
2010
Jeep
Wrangler Unlimited FL (JK)
2011
Kia
Cee'd (ED)
2007
Kia
Cee'd FL (ED)
2010
Kia
Picanto (BA)
2004
Kia
Picanto 3door (TA)
2011
Kia
Pro Cee'd (ED)
2008
Kia
Pro Cee'd FL (ED)
2011
Kia
Rio (UB)
2011
Kia
Rio 3 door (UB)
2012
Kia
Soul (AM)
2008
Kia
Soul_FL_(AM)
2011
Kia
Sportage (SL)
2010
Kia
Venga (YN)
2010
Lancia
Delta (181)
2008
Lancia
Delta_FL_(844)
2011
Lancia
Thema (405)
2011
Lancia
Voyager (404)
2011
Lancia
Ypsilon (402)
2011
Lancia
Ypsilon Facelift (157)
2006
Land Rover
Discovery FL (LA)
2011
Land Rover
Freelander (LF)
2006
Land Rover
Freelander2 FL (LF)
2011
Land Rover
Range Rover Evoque (LV)
2011
Land Rover
Range Rover Sport (LS)
2010
Lexus
CT 200h (A10(A))
2011
Lexus
IS FL (XE2)
2010
Lexus
RX (HAL1)
2009
Mazda
2 (DE)
2007
Mazda
2 FL (DEE)
2010
Mazda
3 (BK)
2003
Mazda
3 (BL)
2009
Mazda
3 FL (BL)
2010
Mazda
3 FL2 (BL)
2011
Mazda
5 (CR1)
2008
Mazda
5 (CW)
2010
Mazda
6 (GG)
2002
183
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Mazda
6 FL (GH)
2010
Mazda
6 Hatchback (GH)
2008
Mazda
6 Hatchback FL (GH)
2010
Mazda
6 Sport Kombi (GY)
2002
Mazda
CX-7 (ER)
2007
Mazda
CX-7 FL (ER)
2009
Mercedes
A (169)
2004
Mercedes
A FL (169)
2008
Mercedes
B (T245)
2005
Mercedes
B FL (245)
2008
Mercedes
C (204)
2007
Mercedes
C Coupe FL (204)
2011
Mercedes
C FL (204)
2011
Mercedes
C model T (204)
2007
Mercedes
C Model T FL (204)
2011
Mercedes
CL FL (216)
2010
Mercedes
CLC (203CL)
2008
Mercedes
CLS (219)
2004
Mercedes
CLS (C218)
2011
Mercedes
E (212)
2009
Mercedes
E Cabrio (A207)
2010
Mercedes
E Coupe (C207)
2009
Mercedes
E model T (S212)
2009
Mercedes
GL (164G)
2006
Mercedes
GLK (X 204)
2008
Mercedes
ML (W164)
2005
Mercedes
S (221)
2005
Mercedes
2011
Mini
SLK (172)
COUNTRYMAN 4-seater
(UKL_X)
COUNTRYMAN 5-seater
(UKL_X)
Mini
Coupe (UKL-C)
2011
Mitsubishi
ASX (GA0)
2010
Mitsubishi
Colt 6 FL (Z30)
2008
Mitsubishi
i-MiEV (HA0)
2011
Mitsubishi
Lancer FL (CY0)
2011
Mitsubishi
Outlander (CW0W)
2006
Nissan
Juke (F15)
2010
Nissan
Micra (K12)
2003
Nissan
Micra (K13)
2010
Nissan
Micra C+C (K12)
2005
Nissan
Murano FL (Z51)
2008
Mini
2010
2010
184
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Nissan
Murano_FL_2012_(Z51)
2012
Nissan
Note (E11)
2006
Nissan
Note FL (E11)
2009
Nissan
Pixo (HF)
2009
Nissan
Qashqai (J10)
2007
Nissan
Qashqai+2 FL (J10)
2010
Nissan
X-TRAIL (T31)
2007
Opel
Agila (H-B)
2008
Opel
Ampera (D1JOI)
2011
Opel
Antara FL (L-A)
2006
Opel
Astra G FL (T98)
2002
Opel
Astra H 3door (A-H)
2004
Opel
Astra H Caravan FL (A-H)
2007
Opel
Astra J (PJ-SW)
2009
Opel
Astra J GTC (PJ-SW)
2012
Opel
Astra J Sports Tourer (PJ/SW)
2010
Opel
Corsa C 3door (XD)
2000
Opel
Corsa D FL (S-D)
2011
Opel
GT Roadster (K/R)
2007
Opel
Insignia (0G-A)
2008
Opel
Insignia FL (0G-A)
2011
Opel
2009
Opel
Insignia Sports Tourer (0G-A)
Insignia Sports Tourer FL11
(0G-A)
Opel
Meriva A (X01)
2003
Opel
2010
Opel
Meriva B (S-D)
Tigra TwinTop (XC/ROADSTER)
2004
Opel
Vectra C Caravan (Z-C)
2003
Opel
Vectra C hatchback (Z-C)
2002
Opel
Vectra C sedan (Z-C)
2002
Opel
Zafira B (A-H)
2005
Opel
Zafira B FL (A-H)
2008
Peugeot
1007 (K)
2005
Peugeot
107 3doors (P)
2005
Peugeot
107 5doors (P)
2005
Peugeot
206 (2)
2002
Peugeot
206+ (2)
2009
Peugeot
207 (W)
2006
Peugeot
207 CC (W)
2007
Peugeot
207 SW (W)
2006
Peugeot
3008 (0U)
2009
Peugeot
308 (4)
2007
2011
185
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Peugeot
308 CC (4)
2009
Peugeot
308 CC FL (4)
2011
Peugeot
308 CC FL2 (4)
2011
Peugeot
308 FL (4)
2011
Peugeot
308 sw FL (4)
2011
Peugeot
308 SW seatbench (4)
2008
Peugeot
4007 (V)
2007
Peugeot
407 sw FL (6)
2004
Peugeot
5008 (0)
2009
Peugeot
508 (8)
2011
Peugeot
508 sw (8)
2011
Peugeot
607 (9)
2000
Peugeot
807 FL (E)
2008
Peugeot
Expert tepee (B229)
2007
Peugeot
Partner tepee
2008
Peugeot
RCZ (4J)
2010
Renault
Clio 3door (R)
2009
Renault
Clio 5door (R)
2009
Renault
Clio FL4 3door (B)
2009
Renault
Clio Grandtour (R)
2008
Renault
Espace 4 (K)
2006
Renault
Espace 4 FL (K)
2010
Renault
Fluence (Z)
2010
Renault
Grand Modus (P)
2008
Renault
Grand Scénic (JM)
2004
Renault
Grand Scénic (JZ)
2009
Renault
Kangoo (W)
2008
Renault
Koleos (Y)
2008
Renault
Koleos FL (Y)
2011
Renault
Laguna 2
2001
Renault
Laguna 3 FL (T)
2010
Renault
Laguna 3 Grandtour (T)
2008
Renault
Laguna 3 GrandTour FL (T)
2010
Renault
Mégane 2 (M)
2002
Renault
Mégane 2 CC (M)
2006
Renault
Mégane 2 Grandtour (M)
2003
Renault
Mégane 3 5door (Z)
2008
Renault
Mégane 3 CC (Z)
2010
Renault
Mégane 3 Grandtour (Z)
2009
Renault
Modus (P)
2005
Renault
Scénic 2 FL (JM)
2007
Renault
Scénic 3 (JZ)
2009
186
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Renault
Scenic_3_FL_(JZ)
2012
Renault
Twingo 1 FL (C06)
2002
Renault
Twingo 2 (N)
2007
Renault
Twingo 2 FL (N)
2012
Renault
Wind (N)
2010
Saab
9-3 II estate FL (YS3F)
2007
SEAT
Alhambra (7MS)
2005
SEAT
Alhambra (7N)
2010
SEAT
Altea (5P)
2006
SEAT
Altea Freetrack (5P)
2007
SEAT
Cordoba (6L)
2002
SEAT
Exeo (3R)
2009
SEAT
Exeo ST (3R)
2009
SEAT
Exeo ST FL (3R)
2011
SEAT
Ibiza (6J)
2008
SEAT
Ibiza (6L)
2006
SEAT
Ibiza FL 3door (6J)
2012
SEAT
Ibiza ST (6J)
2010
SEAT
Leon (1M)
1999
SEAT
Leon (1P)
2005
SEAT
Leon FL (1P)
2009
Skoda
Fabia 2 (5J)
2007
Skoda
Fabia 2 Combi FL (5J)
2010
Skoda
Fabia Kombi (6Y)
2000
Skoda
Octavia 2 (1Z)
2004
Skoda
Octavia 2 FL (1Z)
2011
Skoda
Octavia 2 Kombi (1Z)
2004
Skoda
Octavia Kombi (1U)
2000
Skoda
Roomster (5J)
2007
Skoda
Roomster FL (5J)
2010
Skoda
Superb 2 (3T)
2008
Skoda
Superb Combi (3T)
2010
Skoda
Yeti (5L)
2009
Smart
ForTwo 2 FL (451)
2010
Subaru
Forester (SH)
2008
Subaru
Trezia (D1(A))
2011
Suzuki
Alto (GF)
2008
Suzuki
Grand Vitara 3 doors (JT)
2005
Suzuki
Grand Vitara 5 doors (JT)
2005
Suzuki
Kizashi (FR)
2010
Suzuki
Splash (EX)
2008
Suzuki
Swift (MZ_EZ)
2005
187
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
Suzuki
Swift (NZ)
2010
Suzuki
SX4
2010
Toyota
Auris FL (E15)
2010
Toyota
Auris Hybrid (HE15U)
2010
Toyota
Avensis (T25)
2003
Toyota
Avensis (T27)
2009
Toyota
Avensis Combi FL (T27)
2011
Toyota
Avensis Kombi (T25)
2003
Toyota
Avensis Kombi (T27)
2009
Toyota
Avensis Kombi FL (T27)
2012
Toyota
Aygo (AB1)
2005
Toyota
Corolla (E12)
2002
Toyota
Corolla Verso (R1)
2004
Toyota
iQ (AJ1)
2010
Toyota
Prius 3 (XW3)
2009
Toyota
RAV4 FL (XA3)
2010
Toyota
Urban Cruiser (XP11)
2009
Toyota
Verso (AR2)
2009
Toyota
Verso S (XP12(A))
2011
Toyota
Yaris 2 FL (XP9)
2009
Toyota
Yaris 3 (XP13)
2011
Toyota
Yaris Verso (P2)
1999
Volvo
C70 FL (M)
2009
Volvo
S40 II FL (M)
2007
Volvo
S60 (F)
2010
Volvo
S80 (A)
2007
Volvo
V50 FL (M)
2007
Volvo
V60 (F)
2010
Volvo
V70 (B)
2007
Volvo
V70 FL (B)
2011
Volvo
XC60 (D)
2008
Volvo
XC70 (P24)
2007
Volvo
XC70 FL (B)
2011
Volvo
XC90 (C)
2006
Volvo
XC90 FL (C)
2011
VW
Amarok (2H)
2010
VW
Beetle (16)
2011
VW
Bora Variant (1J)
1999
VW
Caddy FL (2K)
2010
VW
Caddy life (2K)
2004
VW
CC (3CC)
2012
VW
Eos FL (1F)
2010
188
CASPER – 15 NOVEMBER 2012 - IDIADA - WP4 -D4.6_vFinal
VW
Fox (5Z)
2005
VW
Golf 4 (1J)
1997
VW
Golf 4 Variant (1J5)
1999
VW
Golf 5 (1K)
2004
VW
Golf 5 GTI (1K)
2004
VW
Golf 5 Plus (1KP)
2005
VW
Golf 5 Variant (1KM)
2007
VW
Golf 6 (1K)
2008
VW
Golf 6 Cabrio (1K)
2011
VW
Golf 6 Plus (1KP)
2009
VW
Golf 6 R (1K)
2009
VW
Golf 6 Variant (1KM)
2009
VW
Jetta 5 (1K5)
2005
VW
Jetta 6 (1KM)
2011
VW
Passat B5 (3B / 3BG)
1996
VW
Passat B6 (3C)
2005
VW
Passat B6 CC (3CC)
2008
VW
Passat B6 Variant (3C)
2005
VW
Passat B7 (32)
2010
VW
Passat B7 Variant (32)
2010
VW
Polo 4 (9N)
2001
VW
Polo 4 FL 5door (9N3)
2005
VW
Polo 5 (6R)
2009
VW
Polo 5 (Crosspolo_6R)
2010
VW
Sharan (7M)
1995
VW
Sharan 2 (7N)
2010
VW
T5 (7DB)
2009
VW
Tiguan (5N)
2007
VW
Tiguan FL (5N)
2011
VW
Touareg (7L)
2002
VW
Touareg C2 (7P)
2010
VW
Touran (1T)
2005
VW
Touran FL (1T)
2010
VW
Up (AA)
2011
189
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